NRL's growth mindset points to 18th team. And it ain't Perth.

[LeagueXIII]

I am not even for forcing rationalization on Sydney. I just don't think the NRL should be trying to strengthen its heartlands at the expense of expanding to non-heartland areas. If people in NSW and QLD don't already follow League they never will.

Im glad you're not the CEO too.

 

[The Great Dane]

Sydney HAS rationalised from 12 clubs to 8, Half each for tigers and dragons, and its weaker and you want to it to lose more.

Tradition has huge value.

We can have both growth and traditional clubs.

The AFL have done it right and look how they have grown.

Pfft, covid aside, the clubs are bigger and more financially stable now then they ever have been at any other time in their history. Yet even now almost none of the Sydney clubs, or NRL clubs in general (though that's a more complex issue), are sustainable businesses.

In Sydney's case that undeniably suggests oversaturation. There's simply no way around it, Sydney cannot support the amount of NRL clubs that it has without them being heavily subsidised, and those subsidies have massive negative effects on other areas of the sport.

Now how you go about fixing the oversaturation in Sydney is open for debate, but the status quo is not sustainable, especially not considering that it's hindered the growth of the sport nationally for the better part of 50 years.

And you're right the AFL have done it right for their situation, unfortunately the NRL isn't the AFL and the situation in Melbourne is different to the one in Sydney. However we could learn a lot from them, they never allowed the oversaturation in Melbourne to hinder growth nationally, didn't f**k around with rushed half-arsed mergers that didn't really fix any of the problems, pushed their clubs out of tiny dilapidated suburban grounds, and are constantly softly pushing for further rationalisation.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

I agree with a lot of what you post mate. But ditching one of the most storied and biggest brands in RL in favour of the f**king Sharks is quite the take.

South Sydney Rabbitohs could probably develop a fanbase in the Southern Sydney area if St George and Cronulla were to relocate.

What would be better, West Coast Sharks and Adelaide Dragons, or Adelaide Sharks and West Coast Dragons?

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

On field performance is to a certain degree cyclical, and they're going through a rough patch right now, but the brand is strong throughout the RL world.

.

I like this idea, but not so sure Manly fans will go for it.

Manly fans would hate it, but their numbers are much smaller than any of the other Sydney clubs by a fair margin. Sending the Sea Eagles to NZ could possibly make up for the lost fans from Manly. Plenty of Kiwis have played for Manly, so there's history there that can be used to endear the club to New Zealanders.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Pfft, covid aside, the clubs are bigger and more financially stable now then they ever have been at any other time in their history. Yet even now almost none of the Sydney clubs, or NRL clubs in general (though that's a more complex issue), are sustainable businesses.

In Sydney's case that undeniably suggests oversaturation. There's simply no way around it, Sydney cannot support the amount of NRL clubs that it has without them being heavily subsidised, and those subsidies have massive negative effects on other areas of the sport.

Now how you go about fixing the oversaturation in Sydney is open for debate, but the status quo is not sustainable, especially not considering that it's hindered the growth of the sport nationally for the better part of 50 years.

And you're right the AFL have done it right for their situation, unfortunately the NRL isn't the AFL and the situation in Melbourne is different to the one in Sydney. However we could learn a lot from them, they never allowed the oversaturation in Melbourne to hinder growth nationally, didn't f**k around with rushed half-arsed mergers that didn't really fix any of the problems, pushed their clubs out of tiny dilapidated suburban grounds, and are constantly softly pushing for further rationalisation.

You've summed up the situation perfectly.

I was against expansion into Adelaide and Perth, but I now think it has to happen at some stage for our game's long-term survival. I was in favour of all 9 Sydney teams remaining, but with limited spots available and changing demographics I now think they're doing more harm to one another than good.

The battle for commercial partners and media coverage is more fierce than ever. The amount of money needed to survive is larger than ever.

Can 9 teams in Sydney generate the capital needed to survive in 2050?

Broadcast revenue is probably going to drop as TV isn't as profitable as it used to be, so clubs will need to find another stream. It'll be easier for 6 clubs in Sydney to develop a large enough fanbase to generate revenue through gate receipts and merchandise than it is for 9. Pokies might be banned by then, so we need to find new revenue sources.

Foreign sports leagues appeal to kids and that's who we are fighting against for future fans. Kids are naturally drawn to large and successful clubs.

 

[Perth Red]

With the AFL numbers, if you so much as look at a sharon you are counted as a participant. This has been proven time and time again. They send development officers to primary schools for a few sessions and count every kid in the school as a "participant" in the offical numbers. They got spanked in Sydney trying to pull this grift years back when pushing for more ovals.

I've got no idea what the numbers for touch are in Vic. Can't imagine they are huge tbh. But quoting the AFL's participant numbers in NSW/QLD is useless in any comparison as they are full of shit.

these were registered Auskick participants, not some one off free school clinic.

 

[Perth Red]

You've summed up the situation perfectly.

I was against expansion into Adelaide and Perth, but I now think it has to happen at some stage for our game's long-term survival. I was in favour of all 9 Sydney teams remaining, but with limited spots available and changing demographics I now think they're doing more harm to one another than good.

The battle for commercial partners and media coverage is more fierce than ever. The amount of money needed to survive is larger than ever.

Can 9 teams in Sydney generate the capital needed to survive in 2050?

Broadcast revenue is probably going to drop as TV isn't as profitable as it used to be, so clubs will need to find another stream. It'll be easier for 6 clubs in Sydney to develop a large enough fanbase to generate revenue through gate receipts and merchandise than it is for 9. Pokies might be banned by then, so we need to find new revenue sources.

Foreign sports leagues appeal to kids and that's who we are fighting against for future fans. Kids are naturally drawn to large and successful clubs.

if it wasnt for pokie machines half of the Sydney clubs would be gone by now anyway, it’s not sustainable without them and is being artificially kept in a stagnant quagmire because the clubs don’t have to generate money from their football operations. Look at sharks proudly proclaiming this week how successful they were because they had sold $4mill of sponsorship. WC Eagles have $11million in sponsorship revenue. The game is stuck between a fear of of killing tradition and the need to have big city clubs that can generate $30mill plus revenue without pokies. Who knows how they will ever change things.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Pfft, covid aside, the clubs are bigger and more financially stable now then they ever have been at any other time in their history. Yet even now almost none of the Sydney clubs, or NRL clubs in general (though that's a more complex issue), are sustainable businesses.

In Sydney's case that undeniably suggests oversaturation. There's simply no way around it, Sydney cannot support the amount of NRL clubs that it has without them being heavily subsidised, and those subsidies have massive negative effects on other areas of the sport.

Now how you go about fixing the oversaturation in Sydney is open for debate, but the status quo is not sustainable, especially not considering that it's hindered the growth of the sport nationally for the better part of 50 years.

Nonsense

 

[flippikat]

Geelong is a regional club.

Indeed it is, however that's just ONE regional club - as opposed to the NRL having the Cowboys, Knights, & Dragons.. and arguably too Raiders & Warriors (as they're outside the state capitals, and kinda function as regional clubs as much as city clubs).

Also, Geelong is a heritage club.. if the AFL didn't already have Geelong in their competition it would be WAY down their list of expansion priorities.

 

[mongoose]

Im glad you're not the CEO too.

well you think the next expansion team should be the CC bears, so likewise...

 

[LeagueXIII]

Manly fans would hate it, but their numbers are much smaller than any of the other Sydney clubs by a fair margin. Sending the Sea Eagles to NZ could possibly make up for the lost fans from Manly. Plenty of Kiwis have played for Manly, so there's history there that can be used to endear the club to New Zealanders.

Great idea

And once we've done that what will we do with the area? Call in the AFL?

 

[LeagueXIII]

if it wasnt for pokie machines half of the Sydney clubs would be gone by now anyway, it’s not sustainable without them and is being artificially kept in a stagnant quagmire because the clubs don’t have to generate money from their football operations. Look at sharks proudly proclaiming this week how successful they were because they had sold $4mill of sponsorship. WC Eagles have $11million in sponsorship revenue. The game is stuck between a fear of of killing tradition and the need to have big city clubs that can generate $30mill plus revenue without pokies. Who knows how they will ever change things.

Like Adelaide will.....

 

[LeagueXIII]

well you think the next expansion team should be the CC bears, so likewise...

that was not a serious comment it was a jibe at the way you people think about how clubs should be set up.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Indeed it is, however that's just ONE regional club - as opposed to the NRL having the Cowboys, Knights, & Dragons.. and arguably too Raiders & Warriors (as they're outside the state capitals, and kinda function as regional clubs as much as city clubs).

Also, Geelong is a heritage club.. if the AFL didn't already have Geelong in their competition it would be WAY down their list of expansion priorities.

Remind me what the point of this is again.....

 

[taipan]

South Sydney Rabbitohs could probably develop a fanbase in the Southern Sydney area if St George and Cronulla were to relocate.

What would be better, West Coast Sharks and Adelaide Dragons, or Adelaide Sharks and West Coast Dragons?

Wouldn't work.Rob Peter to pay Paul?You honestly believe Dragons and Sharks fans are going to follow that new innovation?
Joint ventures and flicks have already shown you don't grow the base.You provide a vacuum for fumble ball.

 

[flippikat]

Remind me what the point of this is again.....

Emphasizing the difference between AFL & NRL's competition make-up.

Let me put it another way.

You can have 2 out of 3 of the following:

A) 6 or more clubs in your original city (Sydney for NRL, Melbourne for AFL)
B) Multiple regional clubs like St George Illawarra, Newcastle & North Queensland.
C) A competition that has all state capitals represented, and derbies in major markets, with less than 20 teams.

You can only have 2 of those 3 options.

AFL have chosen A & C, largely bypassing regional options for expansion, in favour of capitals, meaning a derby-filled 18 team spread with Melbourne still generously represented.

NRL have chosen A & B, and that means they cannot hope to cover Australia with a compact competition of less than 20 teams.

 

[Perth Red]

AFL is as over saturated in Melbourne in the modern sporting market as NRL in Sydney. You have the likes of St Kilda and Western Bulldogs requiring $4-7million a year more in AFL grants to stay afloat than the some of the other Melbourne clubs. AFL's variable grant scheme is the only thing keeping some Melbourne clubs afloat.

 

[Perth Red]

Emphasizing the difference between AFL & NRL's competition make-up.

Let me put it another way.

You can have 2 out of 3 of the following:

A) 6 or more clubs in your original city (Sydney for NRL, Melbourne for AFL)
B) Multiple regional clubs like St George Illawarra, Newcastle & North Queensland.
C) A competition that has all state capitals represented, and derbies in major markets, with less than 20 teams.

You can only have 2 of those 3 options.

AFL have chosen A & C, largely bypassing regional options for expansion, in favour of capitals, meaning a derby-filled 18 team spread with Melbourne still generously represented.

NRL have chosen A & B, and that means they cannot hope to cover Australia with a compact competition of less than 20 teams.

Great post! And the outcome is that AFL is racing ahead in pretty much every important measure.

 

[Perth Red]

Wouldn't work.Rob Peter to pay Paul?You honestly believe Dragons and Sharks fans are going to follow that new innovation?
Joint ventures and flicks have already shown you don't grow the base.You provide a vacuum for fumble ball.

Based on what? Swans crowds were 35k in 1997 before any mergers or club dropped and have been 30-31k pretty much last decade. AFL must have massive growth in Sydney tv audiences then? Nope. Reality is AFL is throwing $150million a year at its expansion states, any growth in interest in the game has much more to do with that than the disappearance of NRL clubs. The number of people who switch codes would be minuscule and as long as the NRL has a plan to cover the region with other clubs then no reason the next generation would be lost either. No top tier sport needs nine clubs in one city to hold the city in reality.

 

[mongoose]

Emphasizing the difference between AFL & NRL's competition make-up.

Let me put it another way.

You can have 2 out of 3 of the following:

A) 6 or more clubs in your original city (Sydney for NRL, Melbourne for AFL)
B) Multiple regional clubs like St George Illawarra, Newcastle & North Queensland.
C) A competition that has all state capitals represented, and derbies in major markets, with less than 20 teams.

You can only have 2 of those 3 options.

AFL have chosen A & C, largely bypassing regional options for expansion, in favour of capitals, meaning a derby-filled 18 team spread with Melbourne still generously represented.

NRL have chosen A & B, and that means they cannot hope to cover Australia with a compact competition of less than 20 teams.

I see what you are saying but the AFL states do not have any large regional cities, even Geelong is only half the size of Newcastle. The AFL really didn't have any choice but to look at capital cities. NSW and QLD have large regional cities - Newcastle 400k, Canberra 350k, Gold coast 600k, Townsville 200k and all these places had a League presence so it was an easy option.