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

[Perth Red]

Not sure if that's correct - most AFL clubs are much more recognised as well as having double/triple the membership numbers. Broncos have the most members though.

I am sure Crowe and Packer put their hands in their pockets each year- for how much longer though is the question.

A few poor seasons and memberships and crowds drop in numbers and sponsors jump ship - no income generating assets

That’s a lot of if’s lol. Apparently not, Souths are now making a profit off the back of their large supporter base and strong sponsorship portfolio.

 

[Perth Red]

What would happen if Manly Sea Eagles and Sydney Roosters relocated to regions that will appreciate them, with a brand new club introduced to represent the CBD, North Shore and Northern Beaches?

The new team could be the North Sydney Bears.

Bears are skint, in turmoil in the board room and are from a bye gone era. Just about the last place you’d want to hand over the keys to the nrls future in half of Sydney lol

 

[Perth Red]

You mean just like Uncle Nick? How long will the Nuggets last if something happens to him?

again roosters have significant asset base and non football generated revenue. It’s a myth that politis is putting cash in on an annual basis. He’s set the club up to be financially sustainable for ever more. The only two clubs that seem to be reliant on private owners covering revenue shortfall are Titans and Manly (and most of the LC owned licenses).

 

[marshall stalin]

Great post!

I cannot help but think some Sydney clubs could be huge if they didn't have so much competiton on their doorstep.

I don't see why Wests cannot take over the Canterbury region and St George do the same with Sutherland. I know fans will be lost to the game, but if it leads to Tigers ane Dragons averaging 25k each in 20 years time then the game will be stronger.

One small issue being maybe Canterbury wouldn't let Wests Take over and ditto the Sharks with the Dragons

It made more sense for Wests to merge with the Bulldogs than with Balmain - Canterbury would only merge with Wests if they ran the whole box and dice from Belmore- Wests would be a token partner.

Parramatta firstly wanted to merge with Norths and then with Balmain as Fitzgerald didn't like Eels as a Mascot and wanted to be either Parramatta Bears or Parramatta Tigers for marketing and sponsorship reasons etc

When those fell through you had a couple of shot gun weddings as they say - Wests and Balmain and Norths and Manly.

In hindsight the merges if properly negotiated once the two comps got back together and be a 50-50 arrangements would have been.

Wests and Canterbury

Dragons and Sharks

Parramatta and Penrith

Souths and Balmain

Norths and Central Coast

Manly and Roosters as is

 

[Jim Rockford]

again roosters have significant asset base and non football generated revenue. It’s a myth that politis is putting cash in on an annual basis. He’s set the club up to be financially sustainable for ever more. The only two clubs that seem to be reliant on private owners covering revenue shortfall are Titans and Manly (and most of the LC owned licenses).

I know that but if Stalin wants to throw factually incorrect statements at us he should be prepared to receive some in return.

 

[marshall stalin]

That’s a lot of if’s lol. Apparently not, Souths are now making a profit off the back of their large supporter base and strong sponsorship portfolio.

It happened before they went broke and had to close their leagues club doors - crowe/holmes d'court paid off their considerable debt 7 or so million as part of their ownership takeover.

If they have a string of poor seasons in a row will the membership keep renewing these - teams struggling on field struggle off field in obtaining sponsorship and humans being fickle creatures don't tend to stick with something that isn't successful.

 

[Jim Rockford]

It happened before they went broke and had to close their leagues club doors - crowe/holmes d'court paid off their considerable debt 7 or so million as part of their ownership takeover.

If they have a string of poor seasons in a row will the membership keep renewing these - teams struggling on field struggle off field in obtaining sponsorship and humans being fickle creatures don't tend to stick with something that isn't successful.

See that's the thing. You're looking at it like a typical fair-weather Nuggets supporter. Unlike your lot, we Bunnies fans stay strong when times are tough.

 

[marshall stalin]

See that's the thing. You're looking at it like a typical fair-weather Nuggets supporter. Unlike your lot, we Bunnies fans stay strong when times are tough.

mmm then how come you went broke though?

As said before look at the Green Bay Packers model for not if but when Crowe and Packer split

 

[MugaB]

One small issue being maybe Canterbury wouldn't let Wests Take over and ditto the Sharks with the Dragons

It made more sense for Wests to merge with the Bulldogs than with Balmain - Canterbury would only merge with Wests if they ran the whole box and dice from Belmore- Wests would be a token partner.

Parramatta firstly wanted to merge with Norths and then with Balmain as Fitzgerald didn't like Eels as a Mascot and wanted to be either Parramatta Bears or Parramatta Tigers for marketing and sponsorship reasons etc

When those fell through you had a couple of shot gun weddings as they say - Wests and Balmain and Norths and Manly.

In hindsight the merges if properly negotiated once the two comps got back together and be a 50-50 arrangements would have been.

Wests and Canterbury

Dragons and Sharks

Parramatta and Penrith

Souths and Balmain

Norths and Central Coast

Manly and Roosters as is

These mergers stated here are totally shït, and to leave manly and roosters unmerged without having when everyone did, makes it even worse, but clubs are underperforming in memberships crowds and junior participation, yet they are fine to stand alone, give me a break...
Norths and central coast? Who the fûck is central coast, and parra and riff, dragons&sharks are all rivals, better off keeping the northern eagles

 

[Perth Red]

It happened before they went broke and had to close their leagues club doors - crowe/holmes d'court paid off their considerable debt 7 or so million as part of their ownership takeover.

If they have a string of poor seasons in a row will the membership keep renewing these - teams struggling on field struggle off field in obtaining sponsorship and humans being fickle creatures don't tend to stick with something that isn't successful.

they were being run by old school chuck raffle merchants. The game is and clubs are very different now. I’m sure there would be some drop off as there is with all clubs but it would take some pretty monumental sustained club melt down to see a significant drop. It’s playing hypotheticals like saying if the world suddenly woke up to how stupid putting your money into pokie machines is then half the Sydney clubs, cowboys, knights etc would be totally screwed. It seems Souths have been making profits for quite a few years now, hopefully they are investing that profit wisely for if rainy days come.

 

[Jamberoo]

if an 18 team comp be 9 Sydney teams and 9 Non Sydney teams pools

Play each team in your pool twice and the other pool once - 25 games.

Finals series

Have either a top 5 in each pool with the two pool winners playing off - NFL Superbowl like

Or top 4 teams from each pool in a cross over pool 4 week finals series- like we have now

1's vs 2's (qualifying finals)- 2 winners through to week 3 - two losers play the winners of 3's vs 4"s in week 2
3's v 4 's (elimination finals) - losers out - winners play losers of 1's vs 2"s in week 2

and so on

What is the point of all that? How is it better for the game?

 

[Perth Red]

Warriors lose to the dog turds that are Manly and Abdo thinks another team in nz is a good idea. Lol

 

[flippikat]

Warriors lose to the dog turds that are Manly and Abdo thinks another team in nz is a good idea. Lol

Yep. A 2nd team that no-one here is asking for.

Sure, we'd welcome it.. if they really want NZ 2 in this phase of expansion - but there's no frantic, public lobbying of the NRL for it unlike, say PERTH.

Most sports fans here would honestly be happy with getting the Warriors right first.

 

[MugaB]

Yep. A 2nd team that no-one here is asking for.

Sure, we'd welcome it.. if they really want NZ 2 in this phase of expansion - but there's no frantic, public lobbying of the NRL for it unlike, say PERTH.

Most sports fans here would honestly be happy with getting the Warriors right first.

Funny thing is Warriors had it right, when Stacy Jones was playing, very competitive and the forward packs were monsters, when the bulk of NRL clubs started poaching young talent from NZ, along with management factors and a consistent new coach every few seasons, it becomes a joke, hopefully Nathan Brown creates some consistency there, and we can see the fruits bear like when cellar dwellers knights are now finals bound past few years, i see no reason why adding another team in NZ cant work, if the talent and resources are there, the appetite too, which seems to be. Although everyone seems to want the warriors to win a GF before this should happen, that is not why it should happen, it should happen coz in 20 years time they both might, plus as the rate of Polynesian players debuting for NRL clubs rises you need more local clubs to see that they stay in RL, not switch to RU coz the only optio is playing for Cowboys, or Canberra or even a Sydney based club, and thus not wanting to leave NZ...
Auckland2 or the east side (triangle) will get the licence purely coz thats where the players are, theres no map dotting, perth isnt ready unless they merge with a team that is like redcliffe, Ipswich, newtown or north sydney, but it would be great to see

 

[T-Boon]

Yep. A 2nd team that no-one here is asking for.

Sure, we'd welcome it.. if they really want NZ 2 in this phase of expansion - but there's no frantic, public lobbying of the NRL for it unlike, say PERTH.

Most sports fans here would honestly be happy with getting the Warriors right first.

A second NZ team would have the added benefit of improving the international game (or so you would think).

 

[flippikat]

Good points above, and I honestly think with the setup the Warriors have now, they've given themselves the best chance since the heyday of Daniel Anderson's squad.

I guess I've been influenced in my thinking (no 2nd NZ team until the Warriors "come right") by the noise from a vocal sector of Australia's RL community.. and it seems to be a regular refrain I hear from over there. Is that the view of the majority in Australia? I have to say, hearing it often enough does make that mindset sink-in.

My biggest fear is that is the Warriors don't click, and a 2nd NZ team turns out just as bad (or worse).. but then again, that's worst case scenario worrying, yeah? If the business case stacks up for the NRL to do it, I guess they'll do it & give the new guys every chance at success - they may even take a leaf out of AFL's book and pull a few strings.

 

[T-Boon]

I guess I've been influenced in my thinking (no 2nd NZ team until the Warriors "come right") by the noise from a vocal sector of Australia's RL community.. and it seems to be a regular refrain I hear from over there. Is that the view of the majority in Australia? I have to say, hearing it often enough does make that mindset sink-in.

My biggest fear is that is the Warriors don't click, and a 2nd NZ team turns out just as bad (or worse).. but then again, that's worst case scenario worrying, yeah? If the business case stacks up for the NRL to do it, I guess they'll do it & give the new guys every chance at success - they may even take a leaf out of AFL's book and pull a few strings.

I dont think NZ2 gets talked about much here in Australia but it makes sense. The argument against is as you put it the warriors havent clicked so wait until they do.
But I think that could be a long wait and at some point a second NZ team makes more sense than other places even if Warriors are still crap. They have had 30 years.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

If the business case stacks up for the NRL to do it, I guess they'll do it & give the new guys every chance at success - they may even take a leaf out of AFL's book and pull a few strings.

I'm interested to see what happens if no one comes forward with a bid. Will they bring in Brisbane 3 or Perth?

 

[flippikat]

I'm interested to see what happens if no one comes forward with a bid. Will they bring in Brisbane 3 or Perth?

Good question. I suppose if they really value the market here, they could always form the team themselves, with a view to sell it soon after it's debut. (Conflict of interest be damned!)

The Perth & Brisbane 3 options really would put the NRL between a rock and a hard place.

Even though the idea of adding 2 Brisbane clubs in quick succession has been floated here (including by myself), I have doubts whether the NRL will risk diluting SE-Queensland so fast.

As far as Perth goes.. if that happens under the current administration, it'd need a fair bit of spin to back-track on the very well publicized "rusted-on AFL States" comments.

 

[siv]

With Politis formally supporting the CC Bears bid during their original hookup as a feeder club

I am betting a Brisbane 2 & CC expansion approach will be the way forward