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

[flippikat]

They aren't back in because power brokers like Politis want the central coast as their junior area for the Roosters, can't have the Bears taking that over can we.

If that's the case, then maybe the NRL needs to call them out on it, and say "You want their junior area? Well move more of your home games there. "

 

[The Great Dane]

Lol. Your total ignorance of established supporter bases and population mathematics is baffling! Do a population count and work out what "established" supporter bases mean to a sport! This oversaturation comment is lunacy! You seem to think that the Bears would need to build a new fanbase in the Central Coast and at the same time completely ignore the existing fanbase that is still in place around Australia and in northern Sydney? The fanbases for Balmain and West Magpies are still about as well! Ignoring the recognition and public familiarity aspect and asset of such established clubs has been the major mistake from the so called strategists that allowed this flawed "superleague " agreement to occur. Established clubs with established and well known fan bases are massive assets to rugby league. Only fools cannot recognise this strength and you are consistently showing that foolishness is abound for some in this website.

I see you still have nothing except the same baseless talking points.

You still don't understand how supply and demand works and are still wedded to vague assertions about enormous fan-bases that there's no evidence for their actual existence... I bet it's all RU and the bloody private schools fault as well right!

 

[The Great Dane]

BTW Arko admitted that the plan to rid Sydney of its established clubs was a mistake and unworkable in various fronts.

Yeah he did... 20 years after the fact once it became fashionable to do so and even then only once it became good for his public image...

 

[flippikat]

Souths current success isn't sustainable long term anyway...

I dunno about that. They've done especially well to push memberships, constantly being at (or near) the top of the league on that count for some time now - even against one-town teams. I haven't seen any merchandise figures, but anecdotally Souths seem to be big in that regard too - I think I see more Souths gear worn here in New Zealand than any other NRL club besides the Warriors (sometimes it even seems more than Warriors!).

Those things matter, because they export the brand outside of Sydney, and grow a fanbase interstate and overseas - something that big sports names like Manchester United, New York Yankees or Boston Celtics do. I can't think of any other Sydney club that does that as well as Souths do.. nor can I think of any other Sydney club that's positioned to do it that well.

 

[The Great Dane]

I dunno about that. They've done especially well to push memberships, constantly being at (or near) the top of the league on that count for some time now - even against one-town teams. I haven't seen any merchandise figures, but anecdotally Souths seem to be big in that regard too - I think I see more Souths gear worn here in New Zealand than any other NRL club besides the Warriors (sometimes it even seems more than Warriors!).

Those things matter, because they export the brand outside of Sydney, and grow a fanbase interstate and overseas - something that big sports names like Manchester United, New York Yankees or Boston Celtics do. I can't think of any other Sydney club that does that as well as Souths do.. nor can I think of any other Sydney club that's positioned to do it that well.

As soon as they lose their big backers (Rusty and Packer) they are royally f**ked unless they can find a new one and quickly (and it's inevitable that eventually they'll be unable to find someone willing to throw stupid money down the toilet to prop them up), cause their current success is totally reliant on their owners covering the short fall, everything else is downstream from that.

Unless they make huge changes now to make the business sustainable independent of assistance from their owners they'll be right back where they were 10 years ago in a heartbeat.

 

[Stallion]

Yeah he did... 20 years after the fact once it became fashionable to do so and even then only once it became good for his public image...

At least you are aware of Arko admitting to the mistake of carving up established clubs with widespread fanbases and local rivalries.These factors are massive in the integrity of a respected competition and you think Arko has said this as a public relations stunt?!You are definitely one of the most disrespectful sods I've come across on this website. Rugby league would well & truelly be far worse off with your blind logic being followed .Both established club culture and population numbers demand that this precious and longstanding competition with Sydney origins, and the most popular of all "rugby" competitions of the world demands respect through its longevity of support and you want to dismantle it!? A pathetic and ignorant stance! All I can state is that you are consistent in your endeavour to undermine rugby-league in Australia. As your concept of where and what rugby league should look like is not respectful nor feasible.

 

[The Great Dane]

At least you are aware of Arko admitting to the mistake of carving up established clubs with widespread fanbases and local rivalries.These factors are massive in the integrity of a respected competition and you think Arko has said this as a public relations stunt?!You are definitely one of the most disrespectful sods I've come across on this website. Rugby league would well & truelly be far worse off with your blind logic being followed .Both established club culture and population numbers demand that this precious and longstanding competition with Sydney origins, and the most popular of all "rugby" competitions of the world demands respect through its longevity of support and you want to dismantle it!? A pathetic and ignorant stance! All I can state is that you are consistent in your endeavour to undermine rugby-league in Australia. As your concept of where and what rugby league should look like is not respectful nor feasible.

Whatever dude.

 

[Stallion]

Whatever dude.

Typical! The ignorance is astonishing.

 

[Perth Red]

If that's the case, then maybe the NRL needs to call them out on it, and say "You want their junior area? Well move more of your home games there. "

Tbf the Roosters only moved in after the Bears abandoned the region.

 

[Perth Red]

As soon as they lose their big backers (Rusty and Packer) they are royally f**ked unless they can find a new one and quickly (and it's inevitable that eventually they'll be unable to find someone willing to throw stupid money down the toilet to prop them up), cause their current success is totally reliant on their owners covering the short fall, everything else is downstream from that.

Unless they make huge changes now to make the business sustainable independent of assistance from their owners they'll be right back where they were 10 years ago in a heartbeat.

Didn’t they make a profit cohole of years ago and I suspect will be one of the 8 who did last year? Rich owners are good for back up but seems Souths are one of the few clubs with more chance of sustainability without pokies

 

[Pommy]

Didn’t they make a profit cohole of years ago and I suspect will be one of the 8 who did last year? Rich owners are good for back up but seems Souths are one of the few clubs with more chance of sustainability without pokies

Souths get a lot of money from Souths juniors who get their money from pokies. The idea Souths are soley reliant on rich backers isn’t really based in reality.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

I see you still have nothing except the same baseless talking points.

You still don't understand how supply and demand works and are still wedded to vague assertions about enormous fan-bases that there's no evidence for their actual existence... I bet it's all RU and the bloody private schools fault as well right!

I'm convinced he is an AI bot

 

[LeagueXIII]

Well that's just blatantly rewriting history to an egregious extent...

Okay just for you:

Super League 1997

Nth Qld
Brisbane
Canberra
Auckland
Cronulla
Canterbury
Penrith

all survived

Hunter (who would never survive up against the Knights, the people's team)
Adelaide (not profitable like Norths)
Perth (not profitable like your claims Balmain aren't)

With the AFL in full swing bringing in second teams in Perth and Adelaide leagues window was shrinking to a bare minimum.

were dissolved to form the Melbourne Storm (probably the only good thing to come out of the War)

ARL 1997

Balmain
Wests
St.George
Illawarra
Norths
Manly
Souths
Gold Coast
South Qld

were all killed off/destroyed as they were

Parramatta (too big an area with large following)
Easts (Politis political strength within game saw his club survive)
Newcastle (big city club)

 

[LeagueXIII]

Lol. Your total ignorance of established supporter bases and population mathematics is baffling! Do a population count and work out what "established" supporter bases mean to a sport! This oversaturation comment is lunacy! You seem to think that the Bears would need to build a new fanbase in the Central Coast and at the same time completely ignore the existing fanbase that is still in place around Australia and in northern Sydney? The fanbases for Balmain and West Magpies are still about as well! Ignoring the recognition and public familiarity aspect and asset of such established clubs has been the major mistake from the so called strategists that allowed this flawed "superleague " agreement to occur. Established clubs with established and well known fan bases are massive assets to rugby league. Only fools cannot recognise this strength and you are consistently showing that foolishness is abound for some in this website.

People would rather a team in Adelaide with 5000 fans when Adelaide couldn't give two hoots about league and their attention is focused on two massive AFL teams that average over 71,000 between them plus a strong local comp that is still quite strong and drew 40,000 to it's grand final.

I'm all for an Adelaide team but in a second tier comp, like PNG Hunters.

 

[The Great Dane]

Didn’t they make a profit cohole of years ago and I suspect will be one of the 8 who did last year? Rich owners are good for back up but seems Souths are one of the few clubs with more chance of sustainability without pokies

Souths get a lot of money from Souths juniors who get their money from pokies. The idea Souths are soley reliant on rich backers isn’t really based in reality.

As soon as Rusty (and to a lesser extent Packer) goes and he isn't replaced their attractiveness to sponsors and more importantly third parties will basically half, once their attractiveness to sponsors and third parties halves their sponsorship space won't be worth anywhere near what it's currently worth which is bad in of it's self but what'll really f**k them is that they won't be attracting anywhere near the third parties that they currently do.

Once third parties start to overlook them significantly more of their players wadges will have to go on the cap and they suddenly won't be as competitive in the players market as they currently are cause they'll effectively be paying overs on the cap to attract and keep players on the roster, once they aren't as competitive in third parties and thus in the players market they won't be able afford as many good players (let alone star players) as some of the competition, once that happens it's a quick spiral down, the standard of players at the club will tank, since they can't afford enough good players to compete with the clubs that can afford them they won't be as competitive on the field so their rate of success will tank, once their rate of success tanks their ability to attract and hold onto fans will tank, as their ability to attract and hold onto fans tanks their membership, attendance, and viewership numbers will tank, once they tank they'll be even less attractive to sponsors and third parties.

From that point unless something drastically changes they'll either fall into this sort of limbo that the Raiders and others like them are stuck in where they are surviving but it's borderline impossible for them to actually be competitive and successful for an extended period of time because the rules of the comp are so weighted in favour of a handful of their oppositions, or (and much more likely considering their history IMO) they'll overspend, take risky business deals, and probably cheat the cap to try and stay competitive and eventually that will bite them in the arse and they'll be really f**ked.

That is why they are reliant on Crowe (and to a lesser extent Packer) and it's why their current success isn't sustainable...

Haves and haves not's, it's probably the biggest problem with the NRL currently... And frankly I highly doubt that the NRL's interested in doing anything to change it.

 

[Stallion]

As soon as Rusty (and to a lesser extent Packer) goes and he isn't replaced their attractiveness to sponsors and more importantly third parties will basically half, once their attractiveness to sponsors and third parties halves their sponsorship space won't be worth anywhere near what it's currently worth which is bad in of it's self but what'll really f**k them is that they won't be attracting anywhere near the third parties that they currently do.

Once third parties start to overlook them significantly more of their players wadges will have to go on the cap and they suddenly won't be as competitive in the players market as they currently are cause they'll effectively be paying overs on the cap to attract and keep players on the roster, once they aren't as competitive in third parties and thus in the players market they won't be able afford as many good players (let alone star players) as some of the competition, once that happens it's a quick spiral down, the standard of players at the club will tank, since they can't afford enough good players to compete with the clubs that can afford them they won't be as competitive on the field so their rate of success will tank, once their rate of success tanks their ability to attract and hold onto fans will tank, as their ability to attract and hold onto fans tanks their membership, attendance, and viewership numbers will tank, once they tank they'll be even less attractive to sponsors and third parties.

From that point unless something drastically changes they'll either fall into this sort of limbo that the Raiders and others like them are stuck in where they are surviving but it's borderline impossible for them to actually be competitive and successful for an extended period of time because the rules of the comp are so weighted in favour of a handful of their oppositions, or (and much more likely considering their history IMO) they'll overspend, take risky business deals, and probably cheat the cap to try and stay competitive and eventually that will bite them in the arse and they'll be really f**ked.

That is why they are reliant on Crowe (and to a lesser extent Packer) and it's why their current success isn't sustainable...

Haves and haves not's, it's probably the biggest problem with the NRL currently... And frankly I highly doubt that the NRL's interested in doing anything to change it.

Hardcore facts like establisted fan bases and household familiarity to the neutral fans has been decreased by the carve up that occured courtesy of the flawed superleague logic/agreement. Simply incompetent administrators were at the helm and were being influenced by News ltd spoilers aimed at weakening this great code that happened to be progressing well in greater Australia leading up to this time period.

 

[The Great Dane]

Okay just for you:

Super League 1997

Nth Qld
Brisbane
Canberra
Auckland
Cronulla
Canterbury
Penrith

all survived

Hunter (who would never survive up against the Knights, the people's team)
Adelaide (not profitable like Norths)
Perth (not profitable like your claims Balmain aren't)

With the AFL in full swing bringing in second teams in Perth and Adelaide leagues window was shrinking to a bare minimum.

were dissolved to form the Melbourne Storm (probably the only good thing to come out of the War)

ARL 1997

Balmain
Wests
St.George
Illawarra
Norths
Manly
Souths*
Gold Coast
South Qld

were all killed off/destroyed as they were

Parramatta (too big an area with large following)
Easts (Politis political strength within game saw his club survive)
Newcastle (big city club)

Green are all still around today in the NRL in some form, many were give opportunities to survive that simply weren't offered to other clubs, and those opportunities weren't handed out based on merit.

Yellow (IMO the most unjust of the clubs that were kicked out) were wrapped up as part of the "peace deals", but were wrapped up with money in the bank and potentially could have survived and grown into big clubs given time.They were also in better situations than quite a few of the clubs that were 'saved' when they were forced to shut up shop.

Orange were folded out of hand as part of the peace talks. Obviously South were eventually allowed back into the comp due to a dodgy decision by a judge that was overturned pretty much straight away (probably should have been booted out again as soon as it was overturned as well, but that is a whole other discussion)...

Red went broke, but almost certainly would have gone broke independently of SL due to other factors.

Blue, are much more complex situations.

As you obviously know the Bears merged with Manly then that merger failed (broadly speaking both parties are equally responsible for the failure). Were they forced to merge unnecessarily? Probably yes. Were they forced to merge purely as a result of SL? Probably no. But either way the Bears and Manlys' failed merger is their own fault not some grand conspiracy by News (or whoever) to get the Bears out of the comp, and even so the Bears still had a much softer landing then most of the clubs that were booted cause at least they are still alive and kicking (SQ, the Rams, etc, etc, can't say the same thing).

Without going in to deep cause you could write a whole book about this little chapter in NZ RL history, Auckland did actually fold and then the NZ Warriors old owner (who's name bloody escapes me at the moment) bought the Warriors brand from the owners of the old Auckland club and negotiated with the NRL for a new club and the successors to the Auckland Warriors to take part in the NRL from 2000, the NZ Warrriors. So technically the Auckland Warriors and the NZ Warriors aren't even the same club and without the bloke who's name I forget they wouldn't exist at all, but yeah very long story short.

Also your info on how the storm came to be isn't true either, they were going to be part of SL in 98 whether or not the two comps merged, so no the Western Reds, Rams, and Mariners were not "dissolved to form" the Storm as the Storm already existed before they were dissolved, it's just that once the others folded (really only the Reds and Mariners) their players flushed the market and the Storm were a new club with a the whole cap to spend and their administration already had connections to most of those players through SL making it much easier to sign them, so naturally the picked the eyes out of the old Reds, Rams, and Mariners rosters.

So yeah nowhere near as clear cut as you make it out to be and definitely not a cases of SL running roughshod over the ARL clubs...

 

[The Great Dane]

Hardcore facts like establisted fan bases and household familiarity to the neutral fans has been decreased by the carve up that occured couRte system of the flawed superleague logic/agreement. Simply incompetent administrators were at the helm and being untoward lyrics influenced by News ltd spoilers aimed at weakening this great code that happened to be progressing well in greater Australia.

So somehow South will eventually go tits up again cause of SL... Ok then...

Are you sure it's not a conspiracy perpetrated by RU and the Private schools!

 

[Stallion]

So somehow South will eventually go tits up again cause of SL... Ok then...

Are you sure it's not a conspiracy perpetrated by RU and the Private schools!

Funny you should mention that. Think you may have lifted your game! Probably by mistake. But I'll take it. Around the same time News ltd got into bed with Super union (or whatever they call it ). Union has and had been trying to take rugby-league in Australia head on but could never gain any traction or success. So what do you do to a competitor that you cannot beat head on? Divide and conquer them! So it's quite logical that a large scale plot to weaken rugby league in Australia through super league is valid. After all union has done many things to reduce/circumvent the growth /progress /existence of rugby league in many places around the world. Wouldn't put it past these very powerful and influential bigots! ?

 

[The Great Dane]

Funny you should mention that. Think you may have lifted your game! Probably by mistake. But I'll take it. Around the same time News ltd got into bed with Super union (or whatever they call it ). Union has and had been trying to take rugby-league in Australia head on but could never gain any traction or success. So what do you do to a competitor that you cannot beat head on? Divide and conquer them! So it's quite logical that a large scale plot to weaken rugby league in Australia through super league is valid. After all union has done many things to reduce/circumvent the growth /progress /existence of rugby league in many places around the world. Wouldn't put it past these very powerful and influential bigots! ?

Or it could simply be that News was lunching a new pay tv network in Australia and they were looking to add as many of the popular sports in this country to their portfolio, and with both RL and RU being 2 of the top 3 most popular winter sports in the country at the time they targeted both of them to attract as many subscribers as possible...