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

[flippikat]

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.

Yep, and that's a very salient point.

AFL had only one possible strategy - expanding to the capital cities, then doubling down on the capital cities, producing derbies.

Mid-size regional cities (akin to Newcastle, Wollongong & Townsville) aren't as prevalent in Vic, SA & WA, otherwise a conservative AFL administration may have expanded to Perth, Adelaide, then other AFL regions.

The NRL on the other hand has to accommodate decisions made by the NSWRL/ARL in the 1980s/90s to secure the heartland by giving the regions their own teams. Now, I'm not saying those teams should go - they're a huge plus for the game - but the crux is that puts pressure on the competition size, and by extension SYDNEY'S profile in the top tier.

 

[Perth Red]

Yep, and that's a very salient point.

AFL had only one possible strategy - expanding to the capital cities, then doubling down on the capital cities, producing derbies.

Mid-size regional cities (akin to Newcastle, Wollongong & Townsville) aren't as prevalent in Vic, SA & WA, otherwise a conservative AFL administration may have expanded to Perth, Adelaide, then other AFL regions.

The NRL on the other hand has to accommodate decisions made by the NSWRL/ARL in the 1980s/90s to secure the heartland by giving the regions their own teams. Now, I'm not saying those teams should go - they're a huge plus for the game - but the crux is that puts pressure on the competition size, and by extension SYDNEY'S profile in the top tier.

In theory they could have put clubs in Hobart and Canberra if they had chosen but they had a clear strategy for 2 clubs in major capital cities (depending on how you view the GC).

 

[flippikat]

In theory they could have put clubs in Hobart and Canberra if they had chosen but they had a clear strategy for 2 clubs in major capital cities (depending on how you view the GC).

Yeah, Hobart is the clear exception as far as "mid-size heartland AFL cities" goes, Canberra strikes me as a bit of a toss-up between the rugby codes and AFL.. but the point remains - decent size regional options are few & far between for any "bolster the heartland" strategy in AFL-territory.

 

[Perth Red]

Yeah, Hobart is the clear exception as far as "mid-size heartland AFL cities" goes, Canberra strikes me as a bit of a toss-up between the rugby codes and AFL.. but the point remains - decent size regional options are few & far between for any "bolster the heartland" strategy in AFL-territory.

They are, but they arent non-existant, just that the AFL has largely chosen not to go that way. Probably because they know to be a club drawing a revenue of $50mill plus with crowds of 30k plus isnt going to happen in regional areas. We have seen the struggles of NRL regional clubs to keep up unless heavily backed by pokies.

 

[taipan]

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.

Based on the fact Nth Sydney is almost a ghost town for rl.Based on the fact joint ventures have hardly increased the junior base for Wests/Tigers or St G/Illawarra.And when combined
hardly have huge jump in crowds.Plus losing fans when joint ventures came in.I've heard it with Balmain fans,Illawarra fans and Bears fans.
Joint ventures are like kissing your great aunty.A necessity but dreaded.

Funny you mentioned Swans crowds they were struggling prior to the SL war, and really started to kick in when the SL war circa 1995 started.The loss of clubs and the SL war itself, pushed people into other codes or lost people full stop.
I was here when it happened, you were living in a cave it seems.My club was one involved and I can tell you it turned some people off well and truly.I attended the meeting when the club decided to go via Peter Gow,and you're "educating" me LOL.
You have with due respect NFI on what Bears' fans did post SL.I met two separate desperados working, who never came back.How many more out there?What about their next generations?

WTF has Swans TV audiences in a non heartland area to do with RL clubs in a heartland area, when we are discussing joint ventures or flicks?
If you are using that as an example ,then their Tv ratings in the Nthn States after throwing in $150m isn't achieving the desired results(Swans eg after 38 years).Far less so for the Gnats and Sunburns and a little better for the Lions.
When it's all boiled down long term, continued poor ratings eventually put pressure on TV deals,Ask union and soccer.
If you have the money to throw around willy nilly, so be it, but that's not good management.

It is the TV ratings for SOO in non heartlnd rl states, that has created the interest nationwide.Melbourne is a classic example.

Blah,blah blad, typical ignorance on SL implications and NRL being jointly owned for all those years.

Last line BS.Even the Vics acknowledge removing a club or a joint venture in Melbourne won't work.And you again(in boot licking fashion) continue to ignore the AFL dithering on Tasmania.Let alone the NZ fiasco.When the AFL has a similar SL event, get back to me.

You are interested in one thing only, your club and stuff everyone else's.You use AFL as your lean to, ignoring all the time ,their dithering and failures.
You white ant your tree roots,you don't have a tree.You keep chipping away at your biggest base, and you are left with a wasteland.

 

[Pippen94]

I'm pretty certain there is no form of touch which has scrums or unlimited touches (union rules). Touch and oztag are both Rugby League offshoots, there is no touch rugby union.

I play two different casual games each week with union rules. Players mainly from union background. It does exist & I reckon it's better than dump touch

 

[Perth Red]

Based on the fact Nth Sydney is almost a ghost town for rl.Based on the fact joint ventures have hardly increased the junior base for Wests/Tigers or St G/Illawarra.And when combined
hardly have huge jump in crowds.Plus losing fans when joint ventures came in.I've heard it with Balmain fans,Illawarra fans and Bears fans.
Joint ventures are like kissing your great aunty.A necessity but dreaded.

Funny you mentioned Swans crowds they were struggling prior to the SL war, and really started to kick in when the SL war circa 1995 started.The loss of clubs and the SL war itself, pushed people into other codes or lost people full stop.
I was here when it happened, you were living in a cave it seems.My club was one involved and I can tell you it turned some people off well and truly.I attended the meeting when the club decided to go via Peter Gow,and you're "educating" me LOL.
You have with due respect NFI on what Bears' fans did post SL.I met two separate desperados working, who never came back.How many more out there?What about their next generations?

WTF has Swans TV audiences in a non heartland area to do with RL clubs in a heartland area, when we are discussing joint ventures or flicks?
If you are using that as an example ,then their Tv ratings in the Nthn States after throwing in $150m isn't achieving the desired results(Swans eg after 38 years).Far less so for the Gnats and Sunburns and a little better for the Lions.
When it's all boiled down long term, continued poor ratings eventually put pressure on TV deals,Ask union and soccer.
If you have the money to throw around willy nilly, so be it, but that's not good management.

It is the TV ratings for SOO in non heartlnd rl states, that has created the interest nationwide.Melbourne is a classic example.

Blah,blah blad, typical ignorance on SL implications and NRL being jointly owned for all those years.

Last line BS.Even the Vics acknowledge removing a club or a joint venture in Melbourne won't work.And you again(in boot licking fashion) continue to ignore the AFL dithering on Tasmania.Let alone the NZ fiasco.When the AFL has a similar SL event, get back to me.

You are interested in one thing only, your club and stuff everyone else's.You use AFL as your lean to, ignoring all the time ,their dithering and failures.
You white ant your tree roots,you don't have a tree.You keep chipping away at your biggest base, and you are left with a wasteland.

Wests and Balmain combined avg in their last 5 years as stand alones was around the 17k mark (and that was with two sets of away fans attending remember)
West Tigers avg last 4 years around 15.5k

St George-Illaraw draw bigger crowds now in Illawarra than the Steelers did
As I said the losses arent great. If we bring in clubs that can generate more fans than those lost we get a net gain.

RL has struggled in NS (if it has, I have yet to see any quantitative data to measure it) as there was npo plan when they were cut and the NRL didnt want to upset bears anymore than they had by handing their region to Manly or roosters. Some investment in that region from another club may have seen that struggle diminished.

re Swans there crowds where on the rise before SL.
1994 10k
1995 16k
1996 24k
Did they have a successful on the field run during this period? Sure Sl helped no doubt but it cant be the only factor or they wouldnt have sustained them long term.

I've no doubt AFL would have loved one of the struggling Melbourne clubs to move to the GC, likewise I am sure they would be fully supportive of one of them moving to Tassie. They've shown in the past that they support relocations and will give every assistance to rationalise Melbourne.
AFL 2021: AFL relocation, Tasmania AFL team, North Melbourne Kangaroos, 19th team, Caroline Wilson report, news (foxsports.com.au)

So we are are going off a sample group of 2 Bears fans you know? Grow up. More people attend NRl games in Sydney now and more people watch NRL on TV after than before the mergers and cuts. Go figure.

I can see where the game needs to go as I am not incumbered by a fear of losing my club, unlike you. Everyone has known Sydney needs rationalising to create space for a truly national Comp since the late 80's. Its a shame it was the Titans and Knights that NRL had to take over, if it had been Cronulla and Manly (for example) I'm sure they would have moved them if they could.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Great idea

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

Sydney Roosters would adopt the area and play 3 or 4 games at Central Coast Stadium with the rest at SFS.

I'd have 1 team represent Southern Sydney, playing 3 or 4 games at Wollongong and the rest at SFS.

South Sydney Rabbitohs?
South Sydney Dragons? (Green and red)
South Sydney Sharks?

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

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.

Rusted on fans wouldn't jump on board, but kids born in Southern Sydney after the Sharks and Dragons are gone probably will. Souths have enough fans to remain viable during the 20 years it will take to develop new fans.

 

[flippikat]

I can see where the game needs to go as I am not incumbered by a fear of losing my club, unlike you. Everyone has known Sydney needs rationalising to create space for a truly national Comp since the late 80's. Its a shame it was the Titans and Knights that NRL had to take over, if it had been Cronulla and Manly (for example) I'm sure they would have moved them if they could.

*If they could* being the key phrase. At the first sign of relocation the media, fans & club stalwarts would start a mass campaign to "Save club X", maybe even with support from other clubs/fans.. and the NRL would likely lose their nerve.

Anyway.. as I believe you've said in some of your previous posts, the NRL has now just about ensured that clubs won't go broke (Sydney or otherwise) by giving them decent grants.. so counting on attrition to drive relocation is a forlorn exercise.

That also renders any *incentive* to relocate almost completely impotent too - if a club can survive "as is, where is" with reasonable income & a nice NRL grant t'boot, why take $X million to pack up and relocate? Not that any relocation incentive is on the table currently, anyway.....

Sure you can say "but you can potentially generate more income in Perth, have the city to yourself, and not have to jostle in a crowded city with half a dozen other clubs", but it's a risk to club administrators, and inertia is damn hard to overcome.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Sydney Roosters would adopt the area and play 3 or 4 games at Central Coast Stadium with the rest at SFS.

I'd have 1 team represent Southern Sydney, playing 3 or 4 games at Wollongong and the rest at SFS.

South Sydney Rabbitohs?
South Sydney Dragons? (Green and red)
South Sydney Sharks?

Fantastic....that's how you grow rugby league!!

 

[LeagueXIII]

The AFL in their great wisdom seeing the opportunity as RL was tearing itself apart sent Tony Lockett to the Swans. He was actually headed to Collingwood.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Rusted on fans wouldn't jump on board, but kids born in Southern Sydney after the Sharks and Dragons are gone probably will. Souths have enough fans to remain viable during the 20 years it will take to develop new fans.

So what have we gained

 

[LeagueXIII]

*If they could* being the key phrase. At the first sign of relocation the media, fans & club stalwarts would start a mass campaign to "Save club X", maybe even with support from other clubs/fans.. and the NRL would likely lose their nerve.

Anyway.. as I believe you've said in some of your previous posts, the NRL has now just about ensured that clubs won't go broke (Sydney or otherwise) by giving them decent grants.. so counting on attrition to drive relocation is a forlorn exercise.

That also renders any *incentive* to relocate almost completely impotent too - if a club can survive "as is, where is" with reasonable income & a nice NRL grant t'boot, why take $X million to pack up and relocate? Not that any relocation incentive is on the table currently, anyway.....

Sure you can say "but you can potentially generate more income in Perth, have the city to yourself, and not have to jostle in a crowded city with half a dozen other clubs", but it's a risk to club administrators, and inertia is damn hard to overcome.

But you wouldnt have a city like Perth to yourself. There are two massive AFL clubs, soccer team, a very succesful basketball team and even a union team and a strong local AFL competition.

 

[flippikat]

But you wouldnt have a city like Perth to yourself. There are two massive AFL clubs, soccer team, a very succesful basketball team and even a union team and a strong local AFL competition.

I inferred that as far as *NRL* goes, the relocated club would have their new home to themselves.

Either you missed the inference, or you're just being obtuse & nit-picky.

In an NRL sense, my point stands.

 

[The Great Dane]

Nonsense

Got nothing then lol.

 

[Perth Red]

*If they could* being the key phrase. At the first sign of relocation the media, fans & club stalwarts would start a mass campaign to "Save club X", maybe even with support from other clubs/fans.. and the NRL would likely lose their nerve.

Anyway.. as I believe you've said in some of your previous posts, the NRL has now just about ensured that clubs won't go broke (Sydney or otherwise) by giving them decent grants.. so counting on attrition to drive relocation is a forlorn exercise.

That also renders any *incentive* to relocate almost completely impotent too - if a club can survive "as is, where is" with reasonable income & a nice NRL grant t'boot, why take $X million to pack up and relocate? Not that any relocation incentive is on the table currently, anyway.....

Sure you can say "but you can potentially generate more income in Perth, have the city to yourself, and not have to jostle in a crowded city with half a dozen other clubs", but it's a risk to club administrators, and inertia is damn hard to overcome.

agreed, never going to happen, we’re just playing hypotheticals and what should be, not what will be.

 

[The Great Dane]

re Swans there crowds where on the rise before SL.
1994 10k
1995 16k
1996 24k
Did they have a successful on the field run during this period? Sure Sl helped no doubt but it cant be the only factor or they wouldnt have sustained them long term.

In 1995 they signed Tony Lockett, a super star player, and went from winning 3 spoons in a row to a team with a bit of potential. In 96 they were serious contenders and made the finals for the first time since 1987 (IIRC).

In 1990 they came 13th out of 14.
91 12th out of 15.
92 15th out of 15.
93 15th out of 15.
94 15th out of 15.
95 12th out of 16.
96 1st out of 16.
97 6th out of 16.
98 3rd out of 16.
99 8th out of 16.

After 99 Lockett retired (he briefly came out of retirement in 02) and they struggled for a couple years in the early 00s, before they won their first "flag" since moving to Sydney in 05.

In other words, in the mid 90s the Swans started a golden period of success that continued more or less continuously until a couple of years ago, and everybody that argues that the Swans benefited significantly from the SL war always forgets to mention that fact.

On the Bears; I've been looking for hard evidence of an exodus of Bears fans that didn't show a prior interest in other sports since that time, and as far as I can tell there's zero evidence that North Sydney Bears fans jumped to the Swans and/or Waratahs en masse during the SL war, after the Bears merged with Eagles in 99, or after the merger fell apart in 02.

The only evidence that has ever been presented to me that that masse exodus did happen are meaningless unverifiable anecdotes.

I am/was/it's complicated a Bears fan, and I was an active Bears fan at the time, if I can't find hard evidence that it happened then I doubt that it happened in any meaningful numbers.

 

[The Great Dane]

So what have we gained

A whole new fan base of fans in a new city, a new marjor market of interest to broadcasters and sponsors, a club that hopefully if done right wouldn't be reliant on the league to prop them up give time, stronger more financially stable clubs in Sydney with larger fan bases, etc, etc, etc.

 

[The Great Dane]

The AFL in their great wisdom seeing the opportunity as RL was tearing itself apart sent Tony Lockett to the Swans. He was actually headed to Collingwood.

The AFL in their great wisdom seeing the Swans were very close to falling over because of lack of support because of an extended period of poor results, sent Tony Lockett to the Swans to pull them out of the shit.

It didn't have anything to do with RL.