NRL needs a second division with promotion and relegation

[Parra]

Everything that has made the history of our sport will be f*cked over. Again. But it's worth it, right?

 

[WireMan]

Why is everyone comparing NRL to Superleague. The comparison is with "soccer" in the uk. We have promotion and relegation and it works just fine. Some of the NRL teams already have nothing to play for.

We went Franchise in the rugby to help create a future national team thats any good as teams resembled an Aussie retirement home. Clubs didn't want to get relegated as the infractructure etc. of Rugby in England is a lot smaller than in Australia. Despite this, the top NL1 teams are still going strong.

Anybody against it is just scared there club will get relegated. Loyalty will be dead? History? Thats just a poor reflection of an Aussie Rugby fan i'm afraid.

 

[Kola Emcee]

You can't just 'make' a promotion and relegation system. The only reason it kinda works in Europe is because it's always been like that from (more or less) the beginning. We would have had to have had it from the start for it to be viable in any way, and we know that rugby league has only been national for the last 20 years.

Not to mention smaller clubs in lower divisions would not be able to afford national travel in a country this big.

It would've been fun if it were viable though. I would've liked to see 3 tiers, 20 sides per league, bottom 3 sides relegated. Top 2 from next division down go up, 3rd-6th have a playoff, winner of playoff goes up with them. Have an ARL Cup run alongside the season, all 60 'league' clubs plus 4 wildcards, all drawn at random like the FA Cup. Piss off NZ Warriors while we're at it.

Div 1 (Rugby League Premiership)
Central Coast
Sydney
Perth
Brisbane
St George
Newcastle
Illawarra
Gold Coast
Balmain
Manly
Adelaide
Ipswich
Canberra
Parramatta
Cronulla
South Sydney
Penrith
Melbourne
Canterbury
North Queensland

Div 2 (Rugby League Championship)
Sunshine Coast
Darwin
Mackay
Glebe
Central Australia (based in Alice Springs)
Cape York (1 or 2 games at Port Moresby per season)
Western Suburbs
Wagga Wagga
Tasmania
North Sydney
Frankston
Annandale
Southern Highlands
Tweed Heads
Fremantle
Baulkham Hills
Rockhampton
Newtown
Queanbeyan
Mt Isa

Div 3 (Rugby League Division)
Geelong
Roma
Port Augusta
Mona Vale
Broome
Kimberley
Albury
Bundaberg
Bendigo
Glen Iris
Carpentaria
Tennant Creek
Toowoomba
Ballarat
Broken Hill
New England
Maryborough
Woomera
Norfolk Islands
Blue Mountains

 

[ali]

There has been much recent discussion about the possibility of the NRL competition expanding from sixteen to eighteen teams.

A number of serious contenders have emerged for the two new positions. Strong cases have been made for the inclusion of teams from the Central Coast, Perth, Brisbane and Central Queensland. Other possibilities which have been suggested as expansion areas in the past include the Sunshine Coast, Ipswich, Redcliffe, Wellington, and Adelaide.

It is clear that top-level rugby league in Australia needs to move beyond the restrictions of a single division system. And the creation of a second tier, including promotion and relegation between divisions, is the best solution.

The advantages of promotion and relegation are that it:
1. Allows the league to expand and change organically and fairly based on a team’s performance and success
2. Avoids the necessity of enforced and unpopular club mergers and/or relocations for struggling clubs
3. Allows relegated clubs the opportunity to regain position in the top flight at some time in the future
4. Provides greater meaning and incentive to games at the end of the season for relegation-threatened teams
5. Allows teams with a rich history who have previously played at the top level (Newtown, North Sydney and Queensland Cup sides such as Brisbane Souths) to aspire to once again play at this level

The disadvantages are that it:
1. Can be financially difficult for relegated clubs. European football leagues include so-called “parachute payments” for relegated sides to fix this problem
2. Provides a difficult situation for “marquee” players who find themselves in relegated sides

The best way to move to this system would be to create a twelve team second-tier national league underneath the current NRL, consisting of a mixture of new teams and existing QRL and NSWRL sides. Allow this league to develop and improve as a stand-alone competition for two to three years before integrating with the NRL.

In the first year of the promotion and relegation system, the bottom three clubs from the NRL would move down, and the grand final winner from the second level would move up, leaving two tiers of fourteen teams.

This would allow both leagues to play a true home-and-away season in which each club plays every other side in its division twice.

Thereafter, each year the winner of the grand final of the second division is promoted into the first division and lowest ranked team from above is relegated.

Possible initial twelve-team Second Division:
1. Northern Pride (currently Q-Cup, based in Cairns)
2. Central Comets (Q-Cup, based in Rockhampton)
3. Sunshine Coast (Q-Cup)
4. Redcliffe Dolphins (Q-Cup)
5. Souths-Logan Magpies (Q-Cup)
6. Ipswich Jets (Q-Cup)
7. Central Coast Bears (NSW Cup)
8. Newtown Jets (NSW Cup)
9. Perth Reds (Jim Beam Cup)
10. NSW North Coast (new side)
11. Adelaide (new side)
12. Wellington (new side)

Originally posted at http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/06/18/the-nrl-needs-a-second-division-with-promotion-and-relegation/

I'm all for this. Have posted similar in the past. We have the interest, history and TV ratings to make it work.

 

[Non Terminator]

Why is everyone comparing NRL to Superleague. The comparison is with "soccer" in the uk. We have promotion and relegation and it works just fine. Some of the NRL teams already have nothing to play for.

We went Franchise in the rugby to help create a future national team thats any good as teams resembled an Aussie retirement home. Clubs didn't want to get relegated as the infractructure etc. of Rugby in England is a lot smaller than in Australia. Despite this, the top NL1 teams are still going strong.

Anybody against it is just scared there club will get relegated. Loyalty will be dead? History? Thats just a poor reflection of an Aussie Rugby fan i'm afraid.

I don't want to see any of the current teams relegated. There is no need to randomly start clubs from the beginning. One reason that this competition is great, well, it's from the words of Gallop. "Each start to the premiership every fan knows their team is a chance of taking the title."

We're talking about f*cking up a club with great financial backing for maybe a team out in the country who can't compete with these other league teams. It's not being scared, it's being realistic. People are just naming areas of Australia for new teams, how much thought is there really going into it?

Let's think about it this way. Last year one of the wealthiest and most successful clubs Canterbury won the wooden spoon. This was largely assisted by SBW. This would be mentioning getting rid of them for a season (eventual to come back, because a second tier league could not compete with the Bulldogs outfit) and replacing them with a team from nowhere, no history and extremely small amounts of fans.

We cannot just place these new teams, and replace the current. And you saying loyalty and history dying is the poor reflection of the Australian rugby league fan? Unlike your ten-ish year old competition, our competition prides itself on history. Every club is building up history and reputation. As well as, well, you know, not having to resort to other competitions for huge numbers of players...

So what good comes out of a promotion? A year of complete failure, resulting in a wooden spoon and lost profits. Most importantly jobs would be in danger if a top tier side were forced to miss a season. Who the f*ck wants to risk that in the modern day???

Nothing good comes out of promotion and relegation for Rugby League in Australia. Nothing.

 

[lturner]

lturner (Lachie Turner) ???

Considering this is your first thread on this forum, there is really only one option for you.

Relegate yourself.

Haha, that's actually quite funny.

Especially from a bloke willing to promote himself as a cartoon hippopotamus.

...... ;-)

 

[lturner]

I don't want to see any of the current teams relegated. There is no need to randomly start clubs from the beginning. One reason that this competition is great, well, it's from the words of Gallop. "Each start to the premiership every fan knows their team is a chance of taking the title."

We're talking about f*cking up a club with great financial backing for maybe a team out in the country who can't compete with these other league teams. It's not being scared, it's being realistic. People are just naming areas of Australia for new teams, how much thought is there really going into it?

Let's think about it this way. Last year one of the wealthiest and most successful clubs Canterbury won the wooden spoon. This was largely assisted by SBW. This would be mentioning getting rid of them for a season (eventual to come back, because a second tier league could not compete with the Bulldogs outfit) and replacing them with a team from nowhere, no history and extremely small amounts of fans.

We cannot just place these new teams, and replace the current. And you saying loyalty and history dying is the poor reflection of the Australian rugby league fan? Unlike your ten-ish year old competition, our competition prides itself on history. Every club is building up history and reputation. As well as, well, you know, not having to resort to other competitions for huge numbers of players...

So what good comes out of a promotion? A year of complete failure, resulting in a wooden spoon and lost profits. Most importantly jobs would be in danger if a top tier side were forced to miss a season. Who the f*ck wants to risk that in the modern day???

Nothing good comes out of promotion and relegation for Rugby League in Australia. Nothing.

Wireman makes a couple of very good points.

1. As far as I'm aware, rugby league is not the dominant sport in any part of England aside from a number of mid-sized towns such as Hull and St Helens, generally located in and around fanatical soccer areas including Liverpool and Manchester. Even in some of these towns I would be interested to know if RL was vastly more popular than soccer or just a credible rival. This is unlike in NSW and Qld, which is a large continuous area where league is the clearly dominant code. So the valid comparison is actually with soccer in England, and anyone who suggests that P&R doesn't work in that competition is .

2. Many current supporters of teams in the NLR are opposed to P&R because the part of the system that is most relevant to them is the "R". They understandably fear that their team could be relegated and that outweighs any possible benefit of the rest of the system. The turkeys never vote for Christmas.

Actually Non Terminator I have very similar opinions to yourself about club history and supporter loyalty - I hate the fact that in the last 10 years clubs have been effectively forced to surrender part of their identity through mergers and - in the case of Norths - worse. I hate the way people in the media and the administration often talk about relocating clubs as if they are simply a business which should be moved to the most advantageous location, where they can "re-brand" their "product" to reach the largest "market". And the saddest part is when I hear people who are genuine supporters of the game talk like this as well, parroting this kind of pseudo-management speak, and truly believing that these things must be done in the best interests of the game.

But I guess we come to very different conclusions about the best way to minimise and prevent these sort of things.

In English soccer, to take the example, it is so rare for clubs to move. History and supporter loyalty is everything. The supporters have the power over the owners in this respect. The league itself is a fairly passive element, just providing the structure for the competition, not dictating who is in, who is out, where the next team should be located. The clubs control the league and the supporters and owners control the clubs.

In American leagues, relocations and mergers happen all the time and the "franchises" are run as businesses first, sports clubs second. If an owner wants to relocate because business is bad in town, he can do it, and there is little the fans can do, because the leagues are closed cartels.

The NRL looks more like the franchise system now, but it is not too late to give back the power to the clubs, members and supporters.

 

[WireMan]

Wireman makes a couple of very good points.

1. As far as I'm aware, rugby league is not the dominant sport in any part of England aside from a number of mid-sized towns such as Hull and St Helens, generally located in and around fanatical soccer areas including Liverpool and Manchester. Even in some of these towns I would be interested to know if RL was vastly more popular than soccer or just a credible rival. This is unlike in NSW and Qld, which is a large continuous area where league is the clearly dominant code. So the valid comparison is actually with soccer in England, and anyone who suggests that P&R doesn't work in that competition is .

2. Many current supporters of teams in the NLR are opposed to P&R because the part of the system that is most relevant to them is the "R". They understandably fear that their team could be relegated and that outweighs any possible benefit of the rest of the system. The turkeys never vote for Christmas.

Actually Non Terminator I have very similar opinions to yourself about club history and supporter loyalty - I hate the fact that in the last 10 years clubs have been effectively forced to surrender part of their identity through mergers and - in the case of Norths - worse. I hate the way people in the media and the administration often talk about relocating clubs as if they are simply a business which should be moved to the most advantageous location, where they can "re-brand" their "product" to reach the largest "market". And the saddest part is when I hear people who are genuine supporters of the game talk like this as well, parroting this kind of pseudo-management speak, and truly believing that these things must be done in the best interests of the game.

But I guess we come to very different conclusions about the best way to minimise and prevent these sort of things.

In English soccer, to take the example, it is so rare for clubs to move. History and supporter loyalty is everything. The supporters have the power over the owners in this respect. The league itself is a fairly passive element, just providing the structure for the competition, not dictating who is in, who is out, where the next team should be located. The clubs control the league and the supporters and owners control the clubs.

In American leagues, relocations and mergers happen all the time and the "franchises" are run as businesses first, sports clubs second. If an owner wants to relocate because business is bad in town, he can do it, and there is little the fans can do, because the leagues are closed cartels.

The NRL looks more like the franchise system now, but it is not too late to give back the power to the clubs, members and supporters.

Cheers, you probably summed up what is was thinking better than me! (I hate it when that happens)

To answer point 1. RL is not more popular in any town or city than football. Not even places like St Helens, Warrington or Wakefield where there is no professional team. In Lancashire (Warrington, Wigan etc.) United and Liverpool dominate. Rugby leage is way down the pecking order.

Yes relegation is bad for a team, but its good for another. At the mo. teams are based on what a few people want. All i read is Bears should be back, WA reds should be in along with another queensland team, Wellington. Sharks should be kicked out. Relegation/Promotion would solve these arguments on the pitch.

Which 10 year old comp are you talking about Non T? We have played both rugby and soccer for longer than 10 years here you know...

 

[Pete Cash]

England has a massive population and players from the EU are free to play in English soccer sides.

The biggest issue is simply player base. Most Rugby League players in Australia come from either NSW or Queensland. It just seems like we would be taking the talent we have and spreading it really thin. If there existed sides that could with a little bit of tweaking compete with the worst NRL sides then we might have an argument but any NRL side would a cricket score on even the best Queensland Cup sides. Nevermind some team from a shanty town somewhere.

Souths Logan who are the defending Queensland Cup premiers uses Raiders reserve graders. The Raiders are hardly a high flying premiership force. Apparantly Josh Dugan carved it up last game and he is a talented kid, but he strugged with how physical the NRL was in the matches he played this year.

There just isn't the talent pool to support it. You would get the hilarious situation of the relegated clubs players moving to the promoted clubs roster. So the Sydney Roosters players would go off and play for Mount Isa or something.

 

[Canard]

Yes League needs a second division, there would be nothing better than clubs playing in front of crowds of up to 200 or 300 regulary with Grand Finals played in front of 2000 t.o 5000

 

[ozzy_ozman]

no... we dont have the market for it and there isnt much money coming into the game...

we might as well start a national reserve grade comp and make it more appealing for fans to attend it rather then a 2nd division comp