NRL wants two conference comp

[MugaB]

Actually if you started fresh Canberra almost certainly would get a run.

A 16 team comp would look something like this-

Sydney x4
Brisbane x2
NZ x2
Melbourne x1
Perth x1
Adelaide x1
Newcastle x1
Canberra x1
GC x1
NQ x1
? x1

? = Souffs

 

[The Great Dane]

If RL was more popular and you were genuinely starting from scratch with no pokie clubs behind them it would probably look more like:
Sydney x5
Brisbane x3
NZ x2
Melbourne x2
Perth x2
Adelaide x1
Newcastle x1

Your bias is showing again.

There’s no way that Perth or Melbourne could support two NRL teams currently.

 

[Perth Red]

Your bias is showing again.

There’s no way that Perth or Melbourne could support two NRL teams currently.

there's no way the NRL is starting from scratch either lol. I thought we were playing hypotheticals? If AFL can make GWS relevant there is no reason a cashed up NRL with intention couldn't do the same for two Perth teams.

 

[The Great Dane]

Why is it inevitable? Surely if it was that easy more would have done it by now?

It’s inevitable because it’s always been the case!

In every period there has been big clubs in Sydney and small ones, and which are which is constantly changing.

In the 80s Parra and the Dogs were the big clubs, 90s Dogs and Dragons, etc.
If Souths had have been kicked in 04 then another team would have filled that spot.

 

[Spanner in the works]

If you were starting from scratch, bearing in mind that when rugby league started the clubs weren't the behemoths they are now, I think you'd want it to be:

1. Cairns
2. Townsville
3. Central Queensland
4. Sunshine Coast
5. Brisbane x 2
6. Gold Coast
7. Newcastle
8. Central Coast
9. Sydney x 2
10. Wollongong
11. Melbourne
12. Adelaide
13. Perth
14. Canberra
15. NZ
16. Pacific Nations/PNG (Darwin-based?)

At least it would have a big footprint and avoid saturated markets.

 

[The Great Dane]

I think it's clear that The Great Dane must have been bashed by a Souths supporter back in school. He's carrying around a pretty big chip on his shoulder.

No chip on my shoulder and no problem with Souths, just capable of looking at things rationally.

I mean if North’s didn’t get the arse then potentially they could have got lucky like Souths, and a rich fan could have come and fixed them up as well; so should we have kept them around because it could have happened?

Of course not, because what happened at Souths was an unpredictable one in a million, and in both cases the most likely outcome of keeping them around was that they’d continue to struggle like they had for generations.

 

[Jim Rockford]

the most likely outcome of keeping them around was that they’d continue to struggle like they had for generations.

I think you need to check how long a period of time generations is. Sure they had been through a very lean period but it must be remembered that they won 4 premierships in 5 years from 1967-1971. That long ago does not qualify as generations.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

although this isn't the forum to discuss it, if the the game wants an overhaul which in my opinion would fix a lot of problems with wrestling and in turn officiating it should reduce the number of players on the field to 12 and go back to a 5m rule. The game has evolved in an ugly way because rules haven't adapted properly to the increased player fitness, strength and speed.

This would make the game safer to play and possibly encourage more people to play the game, which would be a good thing.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Primary source of revenue is broadcasting by a long way.

Canberra gets decent crowds based on population & is stable club but if you started NRL today you wouldn't think of putting team in such small market.

Bigger brands like rabbits, eels & tigers attract audience & create money for sport. Adelaide & Perth are nice dots on maps but NRL would go bankrupt without big Sydney clubs

Sydney is the most important market, but I think there are at least two teams there holding the rest back. Southern Sydney has one team too many and so does Western Sydney.

I look at how the Tigers are able to generate better crowds and TV ratings than the Bulldogs, despite both clubs being at the bottom of the ladder for years, and think that "Western Sydney Tigers" are capable of developing a larger fanbase and being more sustainable during lean periods. If moving the Bulldogs helps "Western Sydney Tigers", which should be their brand name, to become more competitive on the field and generate a larger fanbase, then that can only be a good thing for RL in Western Sydney. Having a club with 30k members and averaging 20k to 25k fans in 25 years time would be a huge public relations boost and allow the club to counter the GWS Giants off the field. It also introduces NZ2 and keeps the Canterbury Bulldogs brand alive by being based in Christchurch. There's a saying, sometimes less is more and you can have too much of a good thing.

Adelaide Sharks could be more sustainable off the field than the Cronulla Sharks. They wouldn't have an RU team to compete against, just one A-League club and teo AwFuL clubs. They could become everyone's second team during the winter in Adelaide, like Storm have in Melbourne.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Not at club level, or at least doesn't have to be. Clubs get $13mill a year from TV. They could easily earn double or triple that from a much larger active fanbase. Most clubs are currently earning less than $7million from their fanbase which is pathetic for a top tier sport.
This is where there is big conflict of interest. NRL needs the big TV $'s to fund everything, clubs need big fanbases to fund themselves. At the moment the two are often in conflict with a lot more emphasis on doing what TV wants, at the detriment of clubs being able to attract new customers.
It'd be like McDonalds telling its franchises they cant open the restaurants at the busiest times when customers want to buy the product because they are being paid to keep them closed by someone else, but to compensate they will give the restaurants a third of what they could be earning.

Posts like this are what brought me around to your way of thinking. You explain things very well by giving good comparisons that are practical and easy to understand.

I think the regional clubs will always be somewhat small and require some help, due to less people living within their catchment. It's up to Brisbane and Sydney to have the right number of teams to keep the game ahead of our competitors, but not oversaturated to the point of cannibalising each other. For Brisbane that number might be 2 or 3. For Sydney it might be 6 or 7. Whatever the number is, we need teams from Brisbane and Sydney to average more than 20k, preferably over 25k, so that they are self-sustaining and over time teams can be added to regional areas like Gosford and Wollongong by 2050.

Imagine something like this in 2057:

Adelaide Sharks
Auckland Warriors
Brisbane Broncos
Brisbane Firehawks
Canberra Raiders
Canterbury Bulldogs (Christchurch)
Central Coast Sea Eagles
Illawarra Dragons
Melbourne Storm
Moreton Bay Dolphins
Newcastle Knights
North Queensland Cowboys
North Sydney Sea Eagles
Parramatta Eels
Penrith Panthers
South Sydney Rabbitohs
Sydney Roosters
Wellington Orcas
West Coast Pirates
Western Sydney Tigers

Wouldn't that be a good spread between Sydney, Brisbane, regional NSW/QLD, AwFuL states and NZ?

Regional TV rights would be important, as would the metro TV rights and the NZ rights would become more important. The regionals will have a region to choose our game over AwFuL.

 

[Diesel]

What’s Benny Elias’s plan if he buys the Tigers?

 

[MugaB]

there's no way the NRL is starting from scratch either lol. I thought we were playing hypotheticals? If AFL can make GWS relevant there is no reason a cashed up NRL with intention couldn't do the same for two Perth teams.

Hahahahaha, they won't even consider one, how the fück are we considering two

 

[MugaB]

What’s Benny Elias’s plan if he buys the Tigers?

I know the first thing he'll do ( and I agree with him) play in orange as the main home color, and play in white for away.
He has had dealings with perth in the past, maybe he will send them to another city, as long as Leichardt gets a few home games a season. He is built a certain way, so don't be surprised if he strips the club for parts and sells the brand to easts of brisbane.
Not saying i agree with it, but he is a clown

 

[Pippen94]

Actually if you started fresh Canberra almost certainly would get a run.

A 16 team comp would look something like this-

Sydney x4
Brisbane x2
NZ x2
Melbourne x1
Perth x1
Adelaide x1
Newcastle x1
Canberra x1
GC x1
NQ x1
? x1

No. Look at A league adding third team in Sydney & Melbourne. Afl doubled up on all capitals & still haven't got an act club.

 

[Pippen94]

Why is it inevitable? Surely if it was that easy more would have done it by now? I mean we really only have Souths and Eels that you would call big from an active supporter base point of view in Sydney. Tigers and Dogs have the most potential to get there. the rest are either hamstrung by their suburban existence, geographical barriers or limited population reach

Being in the biggest rugby league market in the world is advantage Sydney clubs will have over Perth always

 

[Pippen94]

Not at club level, or at least doesn't have to be. Clubs get $13mill a year from TV. They could easily earn double or triple that from a much larger active fanbase. Most clubs are currently earning less than $7million from their fanbase which is pathetic for a top tier sport.
This is where there is big conflict of interest. NRL needs the big TV $'s to fund everything, clubs need big fanbases to fund themselves. At the moment the two are often in conflict with a lot more emphasis on doing what TV wants, at the detriment of clubs being able to attract new customers.
It'd be like McDonalds telling its franchises they cant open the restaurants at the busiest times when customers want to buy the product because they are being paid to keep them closed by someone else, but to compensate they will give the restaurants a third of what they could be earning.

Don't see what one thing has to do with the other?! Clubs can do better but NRL must look to maximize revenue which is done by providing as much Sydney & Brisbane content as they can.

 

[Pippen94]

Posts like this are what brought me around to your way of thinking. You explain things very well by giving good comparisons that are practical and easy to understand.

I think the regional clubs will always be somewhat small and require some help, due to less people living within their catchment. It's up to Brisbane and Sydney to have the right number of teams to keep the game ahead of our competitors, but not oversaturated to the point of cannibalising each other. For Brisbane that number might be 2 or 3. For Sydney it might be 6 or 7. Whatever the number is, we need teams from Brisbane and Sydney to average more than 20k, preferably over 25k, so that they are self-sustaining and over time teams can be added to regional areas like Gosford and Wollongong by 2050.

Imagine something like this in 2057:

Adelaide Sharks
Auckland Warriors
Brisbane Broncos
Brisbane Firehawks
Canberra Raiders
Canterbury Bulldogs (Christchurch)
Central Coast Sea Eagles
Illawarra Dragons
Melbourne Storm
Moreton Bay Dolphins
Newcastle Knights
North Queensland Cowboys
North Sydney Sea Eagles
Parramatta Eels
Penrith Panthers
South Sydney Rabbitohs
Sydney Roosters
Wellington Orcas
West Coast Pirates
Western Sydney Tigers

Wouldn't that be a good spread between Sydney, Brisbane, regional NSW/QLD, AwFuL states and NZ?

Regional TV rights would be important, as would the metro TV rights and the NZ rights would become more important. The regionals will have a region to choose our game over AwFuL.

While network TV ptobably won't exist in 2050 (or even 2030?!) capitals will always be more lucrative because advertisers can reach more ppl (streaming service fees may help regions).

Drawing 20k to home games is nice but teams in big cities with their rivalries just attract more eyeballs.

Game would be better off if nswrl & qrl merged & most teams were from Sydney & Brisbane.

 

[Perth Red]

Hahahahaha, they won't even consider one, how the fück are we considering two

were not, we were playing hypotheticals. The nrl isn’t starting from scratch

 

[Perth Red]

What’s Benny Elias’s plan if he buys the Tigers?

was a bit out of the blue to hear he had made an offer to buy them! 2013 Sage brought him on board to lead a perth bid he was putting together. We know Elias doesn’t have the money for the offer so whose bankrolling it? Maybe Sage?

 

[Perth Red]

While network TV ptobably won't exist in 2050 (or even 2030?!) capitals will always be more lucrative because advertisers can reach more ppl (streaming service fees may help regions).

Drawing 20k to home games is nice but teams in big cities with their rivalries just attract more eyeballs.

Game would be better off if nswrl & qrl merged & most teams were from Sydney & Brisbane.

newsflash, most teams are from Sydney and Brisbane lol