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

[NRLMad]

NZ bears?

haha could have worked - but won’t
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-bears-in-New-Zealand-If-so-which-species-are-native-to-that-region

 

[Vee]

So are we nearly back to where we were before Super League?

Minus Perth and Adelaide - the National in National Rugby League.

 

[flippikat]

Interesting more and more looking like NZ2 is the preference. Which option ?

A) Club based somewhere in Auckland.
- A game in NZ biggest city each week.
- Auckland Derby.
- Potential to lobby for a new 30K Auckland stadium ?

B) Club based in Christchurch.
- Sporting culture & Auckland rivalry.
- Brand new 25K stadium in city.

C) Club based in Wellington ?

Well it sure as hell ain't C.

Non-rectangular stadium, in a city with a "lovable loser" sports culture, that's more focused on arts.

And I say that as a Wellingtonian.

 

[flippikat]

D) What benefit outside of inner city (or this case- country) rivalry is this going to generate? I still haven’t heard any convincing arguments otherwise

Don't you mean D) somewhere else in the Auckland-Hamilton-Bay of Plenty "Golden Triangle", say.. a Hamilton based side, with the odd game in Tauranga and/or Rotorua.

A long shot, but you never know...

 

[flippikat]

This is ridiculous. Sydney conference teams will have less travel than the other conference. This will mean that the Roosters, for example, will only play Melbourne in Melbourne once every 2 years. Whereas the Cowboys would play Melbourne twice a year, every year.

V'Landys is the classic case of "even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day" - his attitude towards true expansion (instead of just consolidation) is terrible, but he was lucky with Project Apollo.

Likewise, his rule changes have seen more open play, BUT more blowouts.

For every good thing he's done, there's ALSO a bad result in there.

 

[flippikat]

Just a reminder that both the warriors and nzrl dont think it’s a good idea.

nzrl:
But on the immediate horizon there are significant commercial hurdles in a small economy, which has a number of professional sports codes already operating.”

warriors:
But from what we’re seeing at the moment, New Zealand hasn’t got the capability of supporting another team commercially.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/leagu...up-second-nrl-team-in-new-zealand-too-quickly

Yeah, all that bluster from the NRL about a 2nd NZ team seems to have totally blindsided the most important stakeholders who'll be affected by it.

It's as if they didn't even consult before blabbing off about it.. which seems to be the modus operandi of the current administration.

 

[flippikat]

yeh maybe different with kiwis than here and in England. Most of the kids here in perth play union and league.
I’m in favour of nz2 long term but it would be very long term, it’s probably more of a risk than perth given the state of the warriors, small cities and lack of big money backers behind any bid at the moment. Union clubs have been struggling f9r crowds in Super rugby over recent years,
That Christchurch stadium does look like a cracker though!

You're right. Outside Auckland, NZ doesn't have a city with the critical-mass of population & business that Perth and Adelaide have.

"Rusted on AFL state" be damned, the money is in Perth & Adelaide.. they just need to be unlocked - ASAP.

 

[Perth Red]

red is not in favour of another NZ side

he has an agenda
id stop arguing with him

actually I am, if it is financially viable long term, just not as the 18th team

 

[Perth Red]

hahaha

another 40 years
theyve had 40 already

And TV execs in NSW & QLD still feel the need to put Peter Rabbit on TV before Australia's game buddy

ln 40 years , look for .. come back in 40 years

yep
120 years is the charm hahahahaha

you’d have to have your head well and truly buried in Vlandys backside not to see the gains they’ve made over RL in last 25 years.

 

[flippikat]

I honestly don't know. However I wouldn't be surprised if there was a broadcaster in NZ willing to pay an extra AU$15mil for another 12 games in NZ, two of which are derbies.

The NRL will figure out whether there's any interest from broadcasters in NZ pretty quickly I'd imagine, and if there isn't they'll almost certainly be forced to change course.

I can't see TVNZ or TV3 bidding against Sky for some games. TVNZ would have to justify using "taxpayers money" to buy sports rights, and TV3 is flat broke.

The rights will stay with Sky, UNLESS the NRL inks a free-to-air deal that guarantees good exposure for the game despite taking a bit less than Sky would pay. A fair bit less.

At the moment our FTA coverage is appalling.. long long delays for the 2 games that Sky deem worthy of replaying on Prime (the FTA channel they own).

That's the reality of a low-population country with no anti-syphoning laws.

It's gonna take something creative from NRL HQ to change that.. and they may have to take a hit if they want better media exposure.

 

[Perth Red]

Yeah, all that bluster from the NRL about a 2nd NZ team seems to have totally blindsided the most important stakeholders who'll be affected by it.

It's as if they didn't even consult before blabbing off about it.. which seems to be the modus operandi of the current administration.

he’s a more Machiavellian idea, Vlandys wants Brisbane2 in, he knows that there is resistance from existing clubs, especially Sydney ones (hence why they are spending their hard earned commissioning their own impact report). What better way to sell the idea of expansion to these Sydney clubs than by suggesting that it can lead to a reversion back t9 the good old days of a sydney comp? Throw in nz2 as the “possible” 18th club which is far less threatening to them than the possibility of bringing Perth in and it becoming another melbourne success, thus diminishing them even further, and voila. Sydney clubs get dragged over the line to support Brisbane2 and the conference thing and nz2 can sit around for a few years until people forget about it.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

From personal experience, when I go to QRL games (usually Pizzey Park), I’d say an average crowd would be 3k-5k. I follow the Falcons though and I know their average crowd is over 5k. What’s your experience here, Donkeys??

So yeah, thousands would be within these stats.

Kougari Oval gets big crowds. The Chook Pen is always full and so is the Leagues Club section that's behind bars. Arthur Lovell Stand often has empty spaces. A conservative estimate would be at least 1k to 2k people there, sometimes more. It's hard to know the exact number as people move around. I know that Wynnum had around 100 club members when they offered that option, as they gave a membership number to each member based on the order they joined and I saw the list of members on the computer screen in the Football Department when I went to collect my gear.

One club that really struggles is Souths. They would be lucky to get 100 people through the gates. I think their only hope is to relocate to Logan and maybe adopt the Logan Scorpions name. Black and white is too bland.

The western side of Davies Park is flat, so it offers a shit view of play when the action is on the eastern side of the field. The eastern terrace is well banked, but it is directly in the sun. The northern side is best as it has some cover from trees. I've seen lorikeets in the hollow of the tree that they have there, which is a nice experience at a football game.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Derby for warriors will increase business. New market brings new fans & potential players. Rugby fans more susceptible to NRL than rusted on afl ppl

Having RL in Auckland every week would lift the game's profile in that city. Auckland Blues wouldn't like having to compete against 2 RL teams. Auckland has 25% of NZ's population, so to get the game strong there would be huge.

 

[MugaB]

he’s a more Machiavellian idea, Vlandys wants Brisbane2 in, he knows that there is resistance from existing clubs, especially Sydney ones (hence why they are spending their hard earned commissioning their own impact report). What better way to sell the idea of expansion to these Sydney clubs than by suggesting that it can lead to a reversion back t9 the good old days of a sydney comp? Throw in nz2 as the “possible” 18th club which is far less threatening to them than the possibility of bringing Perth in and it becoming another melbourne success, thus diminishing them even further, and voila. Sydney clubs get dragged over the line to support Brisbane2 and the conference thing and nz2 can sit around for a few years until people forget about it.

Sorry, but PVL isn't doing this for the shíts and giggles of it, local NRL teams in areas where local RL players are, its really simple, i don't doubt they are looking at Perth and Adelaide for the remaining expansion spots maybe down the track, but not until they get regular SoO fixture there for the next decade, all PVL and HQ want is more players for the pool, in a areas that already play RL, and aren't tied to existing franchises.
Thats northern SEQ and another Auckland based team that funnels pathways from players in the P.I's (tonga,fiji etc) putting teams in areas that will advance the player pool, then when the game grows off that, proper expansion into 1 or 2 AFL rusted states, i dare say PNG might even get a look

 

[MugaB]

Having RL in Auckland every week would lift the game's profile in that city. Auckland Blues wouldn't like having to compete against 2 RL teams. Auckland has 25% of NZ's population, so to get the game strong there would be huge.

Finally a valid statement from you that isn't a rant about relocations or some shít new branding....

This should be the way to take RU head on especially since theres 1.7 million people in Auckland alone, in a country of 4.9million, more players, more eye balls and an increase of international talent, whereas the brisbane2 bids would strengthen Origin from Queenslands perspective

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

You talk a lot of sense. It is a pity that the NRL hasn't really done anything to foster interest in a 2nd NZ side over the years and has in fact quashed any interest. Orcas exhibit A.

I think NZ could support several teams if there had been the groundwork laid. But as you said it is a pity it would need to come at the expense of important Australian markets such as WA and SA.

Its a good problem we have really. There are probably between 6-10 locations across Australia and NZ which would all be viable but picking one over the other is the trick.

One thing we shouldn't underestimate is the player pool issue. This season has led to people saying the player depth is too shallow. If NZ is done properly it can have a bigger short term hit than other markets such as WA and SA. Which could be appealing to the NRL.

The fact there are 6 or 10 areas that should have a team but don't, and only 2 spots available is why the game will need to relocate 2 or 3 Sydney clubs at some point if it wants to grow.

Sydney is vitally important and needs ro have more teams than anywhere else, but they have to be sustainable and not come at the expense of the game. We live in a global world and regional products that don't look to expand, go out of business. If we want the game to be a major player when we're all dead then we're going to need to cater to new generations that don't think like us because they weren't raised during the NSWRL era. Kids born in 2030 and 2040 won't care or know anything about Magpies, Bears, Balmain, St George or Steelers. If Northern Eagles were still around they would be drawing bigger crowds today and even larger still in 2030 than Manly Sea Eagles.

 

[MugaB]

The fact there are 6 or 10 areas that should have a team but don't, and only 2 spots available is why the game will need to relocate 2 or 3 Sydney clubs at some point if it wants to grow.

Sydney is vitally important and needs ro have more teams than anywhere else, but they have to be sustainable and not come at the expense of the game. We live in a global world and regional products that don't look to expand, go out of business. If we want the game to be a major player when we're all dead then we're going to need to cater to new generations that don't think like us because they weren't raised during the NSWRL era. Kids born in 2030 and 2040 won't care or know anything about Magpies, Bears, Balmain, St George or Steelers. If Northern Eagles were still around they would be drawing bigger crowds today and even larger still in 2030 than Manly Sea Eagles.

Idiot there isn't ONLY 2 spots available, there can be 32 licences if they so want, they just all need to be sustainable first, punting current teams while expanding, isn't EXPANSION, you're in the wrong thread, go to the DIVISION thread or SUBTRACTION thread spew all your Brisbane Broncos and Sydney hating nonsense there. For a person who frequents the expansion forum to not even know what expansion means...
FML

 

[flippikat]

he’s a more Machiavellian idea, Vlandys wants Brisbane2 in, he knows that there is resistance from existing clubs, especially Sydney ones (hence why they are spending their hard earned commissioning their own impact report). What better way to sell the idea of expansion to these Sydney clubs than by suggesting that it can lead to a reversion back t9 the good old days of a sydney comp? Throw in nz2 as the “possible” 18th club which is far less threatening to them than the possibility of bringing Perth in and it becoming another melbourne success, thus diminishing them even further, and voila. Sydney clubs get dragged over the line to support Brisbane2 and the conference thing and nz2 can sit around for a few years until people forget about it.

Good theory.. and it's sad to think that this could actually be how the expansion dialogue is being driven.

 

[flippikat]

Idiot there isn't ONLY 2 spots available, there can be 32 licences if they so want, they just all need to be sustainable first, punting current teams while expanding, isn't EXPANSION, you're in the wrong thread, go to the DIVISION thread or SUBTRACTION thread spew all your Brisbane Broncos and Sydney hating nonsense there. For a person who frequents the expansion forum to not even know what expansion means...
FML

32?

32 ?!?

That's a loooong way away, if ever.

 

[MugaB]

32?

32 ?!?

That's a loooong way away, if ever.

Im just pointing out that there isn't a fixed number, as long as they are all sustainable clubs, and all bring something to the table, then there's no end to how many licenses can be handed out, look at the NFL in how their expansion and conferences work, i know there's a waaaaay larger population there and wall to wall cities, but the structure works, and they limit games, so becomes more valuable, where the NRL stretches for 25 rounds, then finals... i feel it's too long, and we'd be better at 20 teams at 20 rounds, only having just one heritage/rivalries round as the team to verse twice, otherwise everyone plays each other once. And reverse the Home/Away for the next season, which probably gets 10 home games a year per club