Rationalisation of Sydney

[The Great Dane]

No I'm very happy for the Bears to rejoin the comp on the Central Coast, a second Brisbane team, Perth etc. Again, I think I've outlined this over and over. I'm not getting into silly arguments with you, that's where I stand and I believe having the Bears back is a positive for the game. Take note I haven't mentioned teams like the Illawarra Steelers or Western Suburbs. However would like to see teams in Perth, Brisbane, NZ#2 etc.

None of that would necessarily impact on the traditional status quo though...

The NRL could add all of those clubs, even the Steelers and Pies, and the NRL would still be stacked with Sydney clubs playing out of suburban ground to an unsustainable degree, the broadcast of the competition would still be almost completely focused on Sydney clubs, Sydney clubs would still get all the leniency and advantages that they get over most of the competition, etc, etc, etc.

So yeah it's very possible to be both a traditionalist and for expansion, however you can't be both an expansionist and a traditionalist cause an expansionist wants to change and expand the game in such a way that it fundamentally changes the status quo that a traditionalist wants to maintain.

Out of interest what was the first season you followed rugby league?

Jesus I don't know exactly which year, I would have been very young, but sometime in the late 50s or early 60s.

You have to keep in mind that those were different times as well, you couldn't just wack on the TV and watch a game back then as until the late 60s they weren't even broadcast on TV and even then it was normally only the GF that was broadcast.

Most of the time in the 60s- early 70s I was more focused on playing RL and watching local seniors games than "following" the NSWRL, but you know we'd read about the NSWRL in the paper, listen to games on the radio, and watch the GF, but yeah it was different times and in Canberra there was a few more degrees of separation from Sydney back then. The point I'm trying to make is that we took an interest in the NSWRL (and the BRL for that matter) but we didn't really "follow" the NSWRL in the same way that people follow the NRL today.

 

[MugaB]

Only advantage of relocation to a virgin area is 1) inheriting and sustaining jnr development pathways in Sydney b) funding from a leagues club to help with new club start up

Having said that if the leagues club has money to burn on the nrl club then they probably aren’t at risk of relocation!

Agree relocation to Brisbane is not an option and would be a slap in the face to qrl clubs looking to step up or partner with a new Brisbane nrl club. I think a joint ownership model with two rich qrl clubs owning and feeding into a new Brisbane club is the best option.

Potentially someone like Souths Logan and Ipswich co owning the SW Brisbane whatever’s.

Leaves the door open for a similar mdel. In north Brisbane whatever’s in years to come,

Sunshine Coast Falcons and Redcliffe Dolphins would be another

 

[MugaB]

Well I reckon they should try something like that. Not trolling on this either.

From what Greenberg said on league life I reckon they see expansion more in terms of games taken geographically more often, than new sides. I’d suggest the latter will be a case of, if/ when a club falls over. The scary part is a place like GC could end up one such club, but it doesn’t fit the agenda

South Queensland Titans, games spanning from Suncorp, Ipswich, Toowoomba and of course Gold Coast
This helps spread the games around southern queensland until a 2nd brisbane team gets the nod
Same can happen with a Greater Western Panthers, taking more home games to bathurst, orange and dubbo covering a large area in central west NSW

 

[Stallion]

Thank you, that's basically it in a nutshell.

RL has lost enough already, the biggest loss being the goodwill it had with the public it garnered under Arthurson and Quayle.

Absolutely! That flawed "peace agreement" was a betrayal to many fans and much loved clubs. For that to occur particularly after such a great and epic ARL grand final (which had captured widespread public support for the ARL comp) was one of the most illogical and unfair things to happen to this "envied" competition. A shambles of ignorance and betrayal from administrators at the time!

 

[MugaB]

Personally i think Central Coast Browns would work better, without the "bears" name, and any affiliations with manly, infact they're moreso better off playing in Christchurch/South Island fulltime as the South Island Sea Eagles.
& have Eastern Sydney Roosters Service the northern beaches aswell as its traditional area, bring the magpies back to top flight to play at WSS and campbelltown, and tigers at Adeliade and Leichhardt, the older brands work, Qld can promote or create its own 2 teams in northeast & southwest brisbane and enter in perth.
I like tradition too, but id rather see expansion and relocation than mergers in sydney

 

[Timbo]

I don't know about having clubs that play in ten different locations - I just think that's an identity killer.

I like the idea of a Western Corridor team playing 9 games in Brisbane and 3 in Toowoomba, or a Southern NZ side with a 9/3 Wellington/Christchurch split. But there needs to be a primary and secondary home. Not being effectively travelling road teams.

 

[LeagueXIII]

None of that would necessarily impact on the traditional status quo though...

The NRL could add all of those clubs, even the Steelers and Pies, and the NRL would still be stacked with Sydney clubs playing out of suburban ground to an unsustainable degree, the broadcast of the competition would still be almost completely focused on Sydney clubs, Sydney clubs would still get all the leniency and advantages that they get over most of the competition, etc, etc, etc.

So yeah it's very possible to be both a traditionalist and for expansion, however you can't be both an expansionist and a traditionalist cause an expansionist wants to change and expand the game in such a way that it fundamentally changes the status quo that a traditionalist wants to maintain.
.

That's your interpretation, mine is different.
I can certainly be a traditionalist and an expansionist, because I want the game protected aswell as to grow, not destroy everything it has that actually means something.

What do you prefer 20/20 cricket or Test....which one means something?

 

[LeagueXIII]

Jesus I don't know exactly which year, I would have been very young, but sometime in the late 50s or early 60s.

You have to keep in mind that those were different times as well, you couldn't just wack on the TV and watch a game back then as until the late 60s they weren't even broadcast on TV and even then it was normally only the GF that was broadcast.

Most of the time in the 60s- early 70s I was more focused on playing RL and watching local seniors games than "following" the NSWRL, but you know we'd read about the NSWRL in the paper, listen to games on the radio, and watch the GF, but yeah it was different times and in Canberra there was a few more degrees of separation from Sydney back then. The point I'm trying to make is that we took an interest in the NSWRL (and the BRL for that matter) but we didn't really "follow" the NSWRL in the same way that people follow the NRL today.

Wow, you've been following the game for a long time.

Do you remember some of those old commentators you listened to? That would have been the ABC I assume, who called the game back in the 70's?

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Being a traditionalist does not mean that your not an expansionist. I think we all want expansion. some just want it the right way(ie. without damaging what has already been built.) others just want it the wrong way.

And being an expansionist doesn't mean being anti-tradition. I want the history that the Sydney clubs bring, I just don't want any of them being poorly run in the top flight with very limited room for growth and preventing other major population centres from entering the top flight. It is a balance.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

I disagree, I would say he is both a traditionalist AND an expansionist. He, like me, sees the value in protecting our traditional clubs as well as growing the game.

As do I - I don't see the value in small, poorly run, poorly supported clubs taking up limited spots in the NRL at the expense of major population centres though.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Nope. I'm advocating not losing the established advantage noted longtime NRL/Sydney clubs give the competition in a competitive market place. The Bears and rugby league were shafted courtesy of a flawed superleague agreement. Just righting the wrongs and gaining more credibility for established support bases. A tad easier than flickingranting ones fingers and expecting an area not known for supporting rugby league to support it! Mind you the game is good enough to attract such new support. (but over time and with more expense)Just look after the heartland areas as well. Not whiteant the heartland areas when expansion can still occur without such lunacy and infighting. The game has been through enough! That's my stance.



Think you are already embarrassed about that accusation. Still waiting for the apology stooge!? But it your style to not admit to your pathetic claim. And the other contributors are still waiting for some common decency via an apology. But no sign of this from someone of your questionable calibre!?

Give me your email address so I can apologise to all four of your accounts by writing the one email to you, it is more time-efficient for me

 

[LeagueXIII]

As do I - I don't see the value in small, poorly run, poorly supported clubs taking up limited spots in the NRL at the expense of major population centres though.

Can you name these clubs and population centres.

I would like a 18-22 team comp, what number do you envisage?

 

[Stallion]

And being an expansionist doesn't mean being anti-tradition. I want the history that the Sydney clubs bring, I just don't want any of them being poorly run in the top flight with very limited room for growth and preventing other major population centres from entering the top flight. It is a balance.

Think you have not taken note that a million more people will be living in Sydney over-the-coming decade! This us due to medium to high density housing planning being government policy That is certainly growth in anyone's language.

 

[Stallion]

Give me your email address so I can apologise to all four of your accounts by writing the one email to you, it is more time-efficient for me

You are still delusional!

 

[titoelcolombiano]

You are still delusional!

Says the guy that thinks the aggregate attendance in 1996 with 20 teams was greater than the aggregate attendance in 2018 with 16 teams - lol.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Think you have not taken note that a million more people will be living in Sydney over-the-coming decade! This us due to medium to high density housing planning being government policy That is certainly growth in anyone's language.

Yes, I've taken into account that Sydney will have projected growth and already have 8.5 NRL teams. Your solution BTW is to add a team in Gosford - lol

I've also taken into account that Brisbane and SEQ will have projected growth and have 2 NRL teams

AND I've taken into account that Perth will have projected growth and has 0 NRL teams.

 

[Stallion]

Says the guy that thinks the aggregate attendance in 1996 with 20 teams was greater than the aggregate attendance in 2018 with 16 teams - lol.

? Haven't stated that at all. However aggregate attendances are a good total measure. Depends how the comparisons are used you delusional fool!?

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Can you name these clubs and population centres.

I would like a 18-22 team comp, what number do you envisage?

I would love a 22 team comp also but the reality is that it isn't going to happen. No professional sports comp in Australia has gone beyond 18. The mark the AFL are currently at, the sporting organisation with the largest revenue in the country. The other reality is that even the EPL caps the comp at 20 and they have enormous revenue streams. 18 is the max in the NRL for the forseeable decades.

So, using that as the framework we have two additional spots available for Perth (pop 2M), Brisbane 2 (pop 2.1M / SEQ pop 3.5M but with two current NRL teams), Adelaide (pop 1.2M) and NZ 2 (Wellington or Christchurch both roughly 0.5M populations).

Taking a 30 year view at expansion: Let's say that Brisbane and Perth take the two additional slots immediately. That leaves the NRL essentially with no presence in the Adelaide and Wellington/Christchurch markets for the foreseeable future whilst small, poorly run clubs in Sydney are taking up a spot and also choking up Sydney for the likes of the bigger Sydney clubs like the Eels, Rabbits, Dogs & Dragons to grow.

 

[Stallion]

Yes, I've taken into account that Sydney will have projected growth and already have 8.5 NRL teams. Your solution BTW is to add a team in Gosford - lol

I've also taken into account that Brisbane and SEQ will have projected growth and have 2 NRL teams

AND I've taken into account that Perth will have projected growth and has 0 NRL teams.

You are strange and delusional!

 

[titoelcolombiano]

You are strange and delusional!

That seems to be your response when you are confronted with facts. It reminds me of when Homer gives Ned Flanders the equation that proves that God doesn't exist and Ned burns it rather than facing the truth.