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

[Perth Red]

I think it ties in brilliantly with the NRL's recently expressed desire to have a 2nd NZ club.

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, it does get me wondering whether this is part of some overarching plan by the NRL to capitalise on something that AFL doesn't have & can't offer.

afl is $250mill a year in front of us, I think they are probably comfortable with their current footprint.

 

[flippikat]

afl is $250mill a year in front of us, I think they are probably comfortable with their current footprint.

Fair point - especially given that they're taking their time over any further expansion.

I guess what I meant to say was the NRL focusing on a market that the AFL don't have a foothold in, and really don't hope to have a foothold in.

To be honest, their ventures over here have been pretty weak.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

I think it ties in brilliantly with the NRL's recently expressed desire to have a 2nd NZ club.

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, it does get me wondering whether this is part of some overarching plan by the NRL to capitalise on something that AFL doesn't have & can't offer.

I’m sure it’s part of a greater plan... exactly what I’m not sure (growing the game in NZ of course but I’m sure there’s far more to it than this). But I for one am genuinely interested in seeing how this all evolves.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Central Coast would be the worst place to put a new team. Its best chance is to become a 2nd home for the Roosters, with the club extending its range from Gosford down to the Sydney CBD. We need the Roosters to be the Brisbane Broncos of Sydney. There's no where in Australia more valuable than the Sydney CBD. Roosters are flying the flag for RL in the heartland of Australia's largest and most prestigious city. I say that as a Queenslander. I want to see Roosters getting 30k to their games and think it can be done if it's given enough market space and promotion on the North Shore, Northern Beaches and Central Coast.

I'd send Sea Eagles to Auckland as they have a fanbase in NZ. Many Kiwi Internationals have played for this club. Thats NZ covered.

Dragons can relocate to Adelaide. Tigers or Bulldogs to Perth. That way there's not so much overlap and the surviving 6 teams in Sydney can grow.

Dolphins and Firehawks to be the 2 new teams. Australia now has AwFuL beat.

I wasn’t suggesting it was a great option, more comparing it with NZ2 as it currently stands.

 

[flippikat]

I’m sure it’s part of a greater plan... exactly what I’m not sure (growing the game in NZ of course but I’m sure there’s far more to it than this). But I for one am genuinely interested in seeing how this all evolves.

Maybe preparing pathways for NZ's rugby (league AND union) talent, so that any overflow can be directed to the 19th & 20th teams (Perth & Adelaide)?

 

[The Great Dane]

Fair point - especially given that they're taking their time over any further expansion.

I guess what I meant to say was the NRL focusing on a market that the AFL don't have a foothold in, and really don't hope to have a foothold in.

To be honest, their ventures over here have been pretty weak.

TBF to them they've never really tried to crack NZ. Sure they've flirted with NZ, played some games there and the such, but they've never made a concerted effort to try and take a piece of the market.

I also think it's extremely arrogant to think that they are incapable of taking a share of the NZ market, not that I'm suggesting that you are saying that, but a lot of people do.

If the AFL really wanted a presence in NZ, and didn't care about the financial cost of building it, then they could do it. However IMO the reality is that they don't think the risk reward ratio is worth it in NZ when compared to the larger markets in Australia, and they're probably right about that.

BTW, considering the political and social pressure on them to put teams in Tasmania, Perth, and to a lesser extent Canberra, the NT, NQ, etc, and the business opportunities those teams would provide, I'd be surprised if they don't expand, or rationalise, again in the next decade or so.

 

[flippikat]

TBF to them they've never really tried to crack NZ. Sure they've flirted with NZ, played some games there and the such, but they've never made a concerted effort to try and take a piece of the market.

I also think it's extremely arrogant to think that they are incapable of taking a share of the NZ market, not that I'm suggesting that you are saying that, but a lot of people do.

If the AFL really wanted a presence in NZ, and didn't care about the financial cost of building it, then they could do it. However IMO the reality is that they don't think the risk reward ratio is worth it in NZ when compared to the larger markets in Australia, and they're probably right about that.

BTW, considering the political and social pressure on them to put teams in Tasmania, Perth, and to a lesser extent Canberra, the NT, NQ, etc, and the business opportunities those teams would provide, I'd be surprised if they don't expand, or rationalise, again in the next decade or so.

Some really good points in there.

The AFL approach to NZ strikes me as akin to the NRL and.. well.. just about anywhere that's not a usual home venue for a club. Happy to let clubs take games here, but not making it a co-ordinated effort at ramping up towards expansion.

I think you have a point about AFL not being done with expansion.. however they seem happy enough to bide their time for now, until a really compelling business case for relocation/mergers/expansion comes along - and to be honest they can afford to bide their time & see what unfolds, because the footprint they have now is pretty decent.

 

[anjado]

Central Coast would be the worst place to put a new team. Its best chance is to become a 2nd home for the Roosters, with the club extending its range from Gosford down to the Sydney CBD. We need the Roosters to be the Brisbane Broncos of Sydney. There's no where in Australia more valuable than the Sydney CBD. Roosters are flying the flag for RL in the heartland of Australia's largest and most prestigious city. I say that as a Queenslander. I want to see Roosters getting 30k to their games and think it can be done if it's given enough market space and promotion on the North Shore, Northern Beaches and Central Coast.

I'd send Sea Eagles to Auckland as they have a fanbase in NZ. Many Kiwi Internationals have played for this club. Thats NZ covered.

Dragons can relocate to Adelaide. Tigers or Bulldogs to Perth. That way there's not so much overlap and the surviving 6 teams in Sydney can grow.

Dolphins and Firehawks to be the 2 new teams. Australia now has AwFuL beat.

They have been pushing the Roosters to become Sydney's team since 1996, It aint going to work they are allowed to sign the best players they get almost universal positive press all the time. But still don't have a big supporter base, they have screwed over pretty much every other Sydney club in favour of one and yet they still can't average 20,000 people a match.

They got the rationalization period badly wrong they should have forced the Roosters to merge in fact they really should have been the first club to merge.

Roosters + Balmain - Would have built a bigger fan base and given the Roosters a larger junior base.
Wests + Canterbury - Based in Liverpool which it looks like they might be sharing a stadium there again soon, it made complete sense given Canterbury's plans at the start of the century.
Souths + Cronulla - The only difficult merger but could have worked.
St George + Illawarra - Based in Illawarra
North Sydney Bears - based in Gosford.

It was such a no brainer thing to do and they f**ked it completely. Now we have the Roosters as a stand alone club who are bankrolled by one guy as the only club in the CBD when there should be two.

The Bears coming back was always about justice they did the right thing by the game they were f**ked over by constant rain in 1998 meaning their stadium was delayed by a year which meant they were stuffed and homeless going into the 1999 season.

Ideal scenario would have meant 6 sydney clubs including the three mergers, Manly, Parramatta and Penrith. Plus the Bears and Dragons who could have still played 3-4 games a year in Sydney. Throw in Newcastle and Canberra and you would never have to worry about NSW again.

But we tried to turn the Roosters into the Broncos and it has backfired.

The Bears coming back is all about justice it's the same as the Reds really both clubs had large potential but it was ruined by the rationalization process.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

They have been pushing the Roosters to become Sydney's team since 1996, It aint going to work they are allowed to sign the best players they get almost universal positive press all the time. But still don't have a big supporter base, they have screwed over pretty much every other Sydney club in favour of one and yet they still can't average 20,000 people a match.

They got the rationalization period badly wrong they should have forced the Roosters to merge in fact they really should have been the first club to merge.

Roosters + Balmain - Would have built a bigger fan base and given the Roosters a larger junior base.
Wests + Canterbury - Based in Liverpool which it looks like they might be sharing a stadium there again soon, it made complete sense given Canterbury's plans at the start of the century.
Souths + Cronulla - The only difficult merger but could have worked.
St George + Illawarra - Based in Illawarra
North Sydney Bears - based in Gosford.

It was such a no brainer thing to do and they f**ked it completely. Now we have the Roosters as a stand alone club who are bankrolled by one guy as the only club in the CBD when there should be two.

The Bears coming back was always about justice they did the right thing by the game they were f**ked over by constant rain in 1998 meaning their stadium was delayed by a year which meant they were stuffed and homeless going into the 1999 season.

Ideal scenario would have meant 6 sydney clubs including the three mergers, Manly, Parramatta and Penrith. Plus the Bears and Dragons who could have still played 3-4 games a year in Sydney. Throw in Newcastle and Canberra and you would never have to worry about NSW again.

But we tried to turn the Roosters into the Broncos and it has backfired.

The Bears coming back is all about justice it's the same as the Reds really both clubs had large potential but it was ruined by the rationalization process.

Central Coast Bears
Illawarra Dragons
Parramatta Eels
Penrith Panthers
South Sydney Sharks
Sydney Tigers
Western Sydney Bulldogs

I would have sent Manly to Melbourne.

 

[T-Boon]

I would have sent Manly to Melbourne.

Yep, Melbourne should have been a relocation for sure.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Yep, Melbourne should have been a relocation for sure.

Manly fans and Melbournians have a lot in common.

 

[Vee]

I think it ties in brilliantly with the NRL's recently expressed desire to have a 2nd NZ club.

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, it does get me wondering whether this is part of some overarching plan by the NRL to capitalise on something that AFL doesn't have & can't offer.

NRL have never been that smart.

 

[Vee]

An eye watering article in today’s courier mail about the Titans owner having to put $35mill of his own money in to them to keep them afloat. Bit of a wake up call for any new club about what sort of money is needed. I can’t see Christchurch having the fan base or corporate support to generate the sort of revenue a modern nrl club needs to be successful. Small population where Union is king and Australian fta had no interest or value in it. Only advantage I can see it has over options is the new stadium looks like it will be great.

Link?

 

[flippikat]

NRL have never been that smart.

Ahh, but maybe V'Landys is foxing here?

Traditionalists have been wanting to bring back the Bears, expansionists have been all about Perth... and AFL probably were expecting some movement into WA too.. so he swerves into Brisbane 2 & NZ 2, gearing up the production line of playing and coaching talent in two *under-represented* "heartland" locations, trying to ramp-up the depth before we go elsewhere?

 

[MugaB]

They have been pushing the Roosters to become Sydney's team since 1996, It aint going to work they are allowed to sign the best players they get almost universal positive press all the time. But still don't have a big supporter base, they have screwed over pretty much every other Sydney club in favour of one and yet they still can't average 20,000 people a match.

They got the rationalization period badly wrong they should have forced the Roosters to merge in fact they really should have been the first club to merge.

Roosters + Balmain - Would have built a bigger fan base and given the Roosters a larger junior base.
Wests + Canterbury - Based in Liverpool which it looks like they might be sharing a stadium there again soon, it made complete sense given Canterbury's plans at the start of the century.
Souths + Cronulla - The only difficult merger but could have worked.
St George + Illawarra - Based in Illawarra
North Sydney Bears - based in Gosford.

It was such a no brainer thing to do and they f**ked it completely. Now we have the Roosters as a stand alone club who are bankrolled by one guy as the only club in the CBD when there should be two.

The Bears coming back was always about justice they did the right thing by the game they were f**ked over by constant rain in 1998 meaning their stadium was delayed by a year which meant they were stuffed and homeless going into the 1999 season.

Ideal scenario would have meant 6 sydney clubs including the three mergers, Manly, Parramatta and Penrith. Plus the Bears and Dragons who could have still played 3-4 games a year in Sydney. Throw in Newcastle and Canberra and you would never have to worry about NSW again.

But we tried to turn the Roosters into the Broncos and it has backfired.

The Bears coming back is all about justice it's the same as the Reds really both clubs had large potential but it was ruined by the rationalization process.

This would have been perfect
A Sydney Tigers team, of Orange and Navy and white, would have made NRL and Sydney a shining light, not now with the easts roosters, pretending to be "sydney", the loss of the bears in north sydney or movement to gosford, would have seen a great catchment for the northern suburbs under the tigers,
And wests/bulldogs would be huge in terms of both money and catchment/juniors.
Im a little bit hesitant to accept a souths/sharks merger as im not sure that would have worked out, a better one would have been St.george and Souths, =Red, Green and white, being South Sydney Dragons, and have Cronulla/ Illawarra Sharks or South Coast Sharks, adding Scarlet to the Black white and Cyan blue.
Maybe a time machine would fix this

 

[MugaB]

I can't really get on board with the idea that the Warriors need to be a powerhouse before a new team can come in. I think this is more of a strategic move (which we have been crying out for) to grow the game in NZ. Gus' appointment to look at grass roots, along with the NRL's long awaited commitment to growth of the game in NZ is a great thing and will make RL a bit bigger in a country with huge potential for the game both in terms of club and international RL. Add to that the growing influence Samoan and Tongan players and national teams are having then you have the potential for a huge growth spike in the next 5 - 10 years.

This!!!!

Brisbane was a powerhouse yet we all agree brisbane needs a 2nd team, now they are officially wodden spooners.
Warriors could very well have the same issue as bronx do, not everyone likes them, so if im the nrl, give them another team they might like in a another point if difference.
I really dont see Christchurch getting a team unless the bulldogs relocate there BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Or simply anyone relocates there, manly do take the odd game there over the years.
But i do see another Auckland based team, similar to the souths/easts rivalry we have in sydney, its would be more like Parra/Penrith tho, as they'd all be happy and hugging at the end no matter who won. again if you want more sponsors/juniors, better catchment area, Auckland with its 1.7 million people, is the best place to focus on to get NZ as a whole of 4.5 million, focused on RL

 

[ash the bash]

Does the NRL finally have some strategic thinking as far expansion of the game goes ?

Initially I felt league would have gone Brisbane 2 then Perth. Looks like they are doubling down on league friendly area's with a view of growing player numbers.

I don't think the ARLC will fully ever own the NZRL, but I do think it maybe is in both's interest to have some sort of merger or greater involvement and direction from the ARLC. NZ2 to me points to trying to grow the player pool. The ARLC certainly see's NZ as having a lot of potential and underdeveloped as far as RL is concerned. This all tie's in with Gus's involvement with the Warriors "setting up the path ways" and further expansion of the junior game in NZ.

pros:
- Certainly not as anti league as some of the AFL states and general Union supporters in Australia.
- More growth from juniors who most play a pretty similar game as league. Growth from the south pacific with all the Polynesians based in NZ.
- League arguably being a more simple and entertaining game gain more traction over time. Especially with the younger demo graph compared with Union.
- No AFL to compete against, personally not really into the whole "code wars". More concerned about league doing what it needs to do instead of reacting to the AFL. Although expanding in NZ gives league an option of doing it without having to compete against AFL.
- If Christchurch based team would tie in with Auckland V Christchurch rivalry.
- Builds the junior base of the game more than expanding into example; Perth or Adelaide.
- Potentially with more Kiwi's and Polynesians playing the game strengthens the international game of league. International league is undervalued and has a lot of growth ahead of it if done right.
- Long run, 2035 with more juniors/player numbers helps with the expansion of non-league area's Perth and Adelaide.
Cons
- Business case.
- Where to base the team? personally think the best option is Christchurch at the brand new stadium of 25k.
- TV rights ? What value would SKY NZ place on a second NZ team. It won't have that much traction as far as OZ media values go. Who knows by 2025 and growth of streaming etc.. could have some new players in the market.

 

[ash the bash]

This!!!!

Brisbane was a powerhouse yet we all agree brisbane needs a 2nd team, now they are officially wodden spooners.
Warriors could very well have the same issue as bronx do, not everyone likes them, so if im the nrl, give them another team they might like in a another point if difference.
I really dont see Christchurch getting a team unless the bulldogs relocate there BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Or simply anyone relocates there, manly do take the odd game there over the years.
But i do see another Auckland based team, similar to the souths/easts rivalry we have in sydney, its would be more like Parra/Penrith tho, as they'd all be happy and hugging at the end no matter who won. again if you want more sponsors/juniors, better catchment area, Auckland with its 1.7 million people, is the best place to focus on to get NZ as a whole of 4.5 million, focused on RL

I do get the argument for a second Auckland team, similar to Brisbane having a game each week in the biggest market. My only concern is that leagues traditional support in Auckland comes from the South and West. That probably has been changing but if I had to guess majority of Warriors fans would be coming from those parts of Auckland. Having a second team based their may cannibalise the Warriors support. It was a view shared by the NZRL CEO on a podcast where he suggested a second team would most certainly have to be based out of Auckland.

 

[The Great Dane]

- No AFL to compete against, personally not really into the whole "code wars". More concerned about league doing what it needs to do instead of reacting to the AFL. Although expanding in NZ gives league an option of doing it without having to compete against AFL.

Yeah the NRL wouldn't have to compete with the AFL, but they would have to compete with the NZRU in the most RU mad country in the world.

Anywhere worth expanding to there'll be stiff competition in the market, and "code wars" will ensue, it's simply unavoidable.

As a side note, if the NRL does choose to expand to NZ then I hope they have the sense to help the new club sign an All Black or two. It'd be a great way to get household name talent into the club without hurting the other NRL clubs (namely the Warriors), and the publicity would be invaluable in promoting the club.

 

[Perth Red]

- Builds the junior base of the game more than expanding into example; Perth or Adelaide.
.

WA has more RL clubs than Canterbury region, just saying.