Possible Solution

[Bulldog Force]

Why not expand the game nationally... meaning more teams are in the comp... meaning an extra $4,100,000 to spend per team on shore. Say we introduce 2 more teams - WA Reds and CC Bears.

Total to spend = $8,200,000.00

That means that our new and young talent coming through can chose to live on the Central Coast or Perth (Australia's fastest growing city) and the money those team can offer players might temp them to stay here instead of going to England or Union.

More teams + More money in the NATIONAL comp = Players staying put.

Thoughts?

 

[innsaneink]

Where do these 52- 60 odd first grade quality players reqd for two squads suddenly and magically appear from?

 

[Eels Dude]

You've obviously put a lot of thought into this thread and your arguments :roll:

1. These teams will need to spend tens of millions to set themselves up in the 1st place.

2. ESL and Rugby will still offer more money

3. These ideas have been presented in many a thread and shot down

Nice work for having a go, but it's a bit more complex than that.

 

[Bulldog Force]

Where do these 52- 60 odd first grade quality players reqd for two squads suddenly and magically appear from?

You tell me. Every club pulls a good young player or 3 out of their pockets each year. We lose about 20-30 players each year to retirement, England and union. Why not keep the england and union bound in our shores and raise some youngsters while we're at it? It'll continue to make the game grow, expand and keep OUR players in OUR game in OUR country.

Aussie Pride

 

[innsaneink]

You tell me. Every club pulls a good young player or 3 out of their pockets each year. We lose about 20-30 players each year to retirement, England and union. Why not keep the england and union bound in our shores and raise some youngsters while we're at it? It'll continue to make the game grow, expand and keep OUR players in OUR game in OUR country.

Aussie Pride

How?
Theyre offered more money.

 

[reginald.p]

More clubs means the club grants the NRL gives clubs will be spread across 18 teams instead of 16 teams. Which means the salary cap would go down from 4.1 million to about 3.6 million. The amount of money clubs could pay to elite players would decrease so the difference in money between what the NRL and ESL could offer an elite player would be bigger. So more elite players would actually go overseas not less.

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

How does adding a team to the CC actually make the competition more of a national competition?

I'm not opposed to a CC team. However, I would really like to know if you live on the CC?

 

[SaveTheChildren]

Where do these 52- 60 odd first grade quality players reqd for two squads suddenly and magically appear from?

The goal would be to dilute the current competition. Why does the competition have to be stronger? Dilute dilute dilute.

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

Where do these 52- 60 odd first grade quality players reqd for two squads suddenly and magically appear from?

Where to the players go after NYC? I think the age limit on NYC should be adjusted a bit. We will lose too much talent otherwise.

 

[Eels Dude]

You tell me. Every club pulls a good young player or 3 out of their pockets each year. We lose about 20-30 players each year to retirement, England and union. Why not keep the england and union bound in our shores and raise some youngsters while we're at it? It'll continue to make the game grow, expand and keep OUR players in OUR game in OUR country.

Aussie Pride

You tell us. You're the one who started this thread. Please explain how you think your idea will work financially, in relation to the salary cap, and how this will defeat the ESL.

 

[Bulldog Force]

How does adding a team to the CC actually make the competition more of a national competition?

I'm not opposed to a CC team. However, I would really like to know if you live on the CC?

My location (which is beside the point) is in my profile ;-)

 

[Bulldog Force]

More clubs means the club grants the NRL gives clubs will be spread across 18 teams instead of 16 teams. Which means the salary cap would go down from 4.1 million to about 3.6 million. The amount of money clubs could pay to elite players would decrease so the difference in money between what the NRL and ESL could offer an elite player would be bigger. So more elite players would actually go overseas not less.

So you're telling me that if we add more teams in the competition the salary cap would go down? That the $500,000,000 deal with Channel 9 would send the NRL broke because they financially help 2 more teams? Just like the Salary Cap was lowered when the Titans entered the comp??? :lol:

 

[Eels Dude]

So you're telling me that if we add more teams in the competition the salary cap would go down? That the $500,000,000 deal with Channel 9 would send the NRL broke because they financially help 2 more teams? Just like the Salary Cap was lowered when the Titans entered the comp??? :lol:

The deal is actually worth about um 80m... not sure exactly but it's around that figure (someone with more knowledge can correct me)

That's an extra 8m spent... which has to come from somewhere.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. If you had proper arguments you'd back them up instead of just throwing up incorrect figures and 'lols'

 

[innsaneink]

Where to the players go after NYC? I think the age limit on NYC should be adjusted a bit. We will lose too much talent otherwise.

I agree....but thats another topic.

 

[Rogue.9]

It wouldn't matter if we had 20 teams & raised the salary cap, we would still lose players oversea's. No team in Australia would offer SBW $1.5 million or Rooney 600 thousand a season.

 

[innsaneink]

sry...jnr ink mucking around

 

[griff]

We don't necessarily need more players. Currently a lot of players retire because they can't find clubs. Increase the average number of games players play in their careers by about 10% and we will have enough players to fill rosters at two additional teams.

 

[dallymessenger]

You've obviously put a lot of thought into this thread and your arguments :roll:

1. These teams will need to spend tens of millions to set themselves up in the 1st place.

2. ESL and Rugby will still offer more money

3. These ideas have been presented in many a thread and shot down

Nice work for having a go, but it's a bit more complex than that.

no they havent, so stop being condecending.

Foxsports have said, more games on TV = more money in TV rights.

AFL know this thats why they are adding 2 mickey mouse teams.

2 extra teams means an extra game. perth should add quite a bit to the TV rights because it makes the game seen in another capital city. also perth can offer a live friday night game shown at 9.30 into eastern markets which also is very valuable.

 

[dallymessenger]

the NRL goes to whoever gets the TV rights next time and says, right we are bringing in 2 more teams, one from perth, how much more is that worth?

it would cost $7 million in club grants from the NRL.

surely an extra game on TV, and having games in the perth market are worth at least $7 million?

id have thought much more than that myself.

but you need a CEO who undertakes how to grow and what tv companies want

 

[In-goal]

The biggest issue is that the NRL isn't a wealthy company, if they where then more money would go to the clubs now.