Rationalisation of Sydney

[tri_colours]

Agree with most of that - the mid-ninties were a great time for the game. That wasn't the argument though, you were arguing that it was bigger than it is now. That's not true. The aggregate attendance was higher in 2018 than in 1996 with four less teams in the comp.

Ian Heads book?, said the ARL had 7 of the top 10 programs on TV back in the early 90's.

Profits in those days were usually around the $8m dollar mark . which compares favourably with what there making today.

 

[Stallion]

How many years did we have 20 teams for? Two and even without the SL war there were murmurs of it being unsustainable. Obviously when I refer to no comp going beyond 18 teams, I was referring to it being in a sustainable way. Anyone can go and make a 20-30-40 team comp tomorrow, how long will it last though? The evidence suggests that 18 is the upper limit and the AFL are even struggling with talent distribution and interest with the extra two teams.

There was a year with 22 top flight clubs! 1997. Noticeably Brisbane Broncos got what they had set out to do: their monopoly of Brisbane! This is still occuring today with their CEO using flawed logic to further instill divisive discourse within the competition. All with one sole purpose; To maintain Broncos monopoly of Brisbane! The relocation chatter aids the Broncos agenda! The Broncos would rather the code infight within Sydney than see a second club challenging their monopoly on Brisbane. This club would have to be a Brisbane based entity. Their is absolutely no way a relocated Sydney club would work in Brisbane. And the Broncos know this ! They are once again spoiling to maintain their monopoly of Brisbane. And we have people whom can't see this tact right in front of our very eyes!

 

[JokerEel]

I would Move the Doggies Up to the Central Coast.. Parra can cover their area..

Tigers to Campbelltown let them play 3 games a year at Leichhardt..

Cronulla and Dragons to merge,that would be good for the Lols.

Wollongong to become the Steelers again and take the 2010 premiership with them So Dragons can only claim 15... (Merging with the Sharks doesnt give them the 2016 title!).

 

[Stallion]

In the eyes of every sporting organisation in the country, none of them have more than 18 clubs

? Are you aware that the AFL are planning for 20 teams in years to come? THE ARL as you have conceded had a successfull and progressive 20 team competition. It was conspired against in a terrible way! So because a powerful organisation in News ltd can usurp a perfectly progressive 20 team competition you have an "only 18 team " competition target! ? My word don't let facts get in the way of such thoughts!?

 

[mongoose]

? Are you aware that the AFL are planning for 20 teams in years to come? THE ARL as you have conceded had a successfull and progressive 20 team competition. It was conspired against in a terrible way! So because a powerful organisation in News ltd can usurp a perfectly progressive 20 team competition you have an "only 18 team " competition target! ? My word don't let facts get in the way of such thoughts!?

The AFL are stupid and don't seem to care about the quality of their competition. Just an organisation completely controlled by greed

 

[LeagueXIII]

Sure, but it was Stallion's claim, not mine that the game was bigger in 1996 than it is now. 1995 also had a lower aggretate too - so he is wrong.

Not blaming anyone, just giving a reason why it was the way it was.

1996 had 121 games in Sydney compared to 90 last year

No ANZ Stadium in 1996, which hosted 33 games last year.

The league also didn't play blockbuster games at big grounds like they do today.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Not blaming anyone, just giving a reason why it was the way it was.

1996 had 121 games in Sydney compared to 90 last year

No ANZ Stadium in 1996, which hosted 33 games last year.

The league also didn't play blockbuster games at big grounds like they do today.

Ok - well you'd better tell Stallion then not me. Would you agree that the game is bigger now than it was at any time in the 90's?

 

[titoelcolombiano]

? Are you aware that the AFL are planning for 20 teams in years to come?

Can you please provide a source / link for that

? THE ARL as you have conceded had a successfull and progressive 20 team competition. It was conspired against in a terrible way! So because a powerful organisation in News ltd can usurp a perfectly progressive 20 team competition you have an "only 18 team " competition target! ? My word don't let facts get in the way of such thoughts!?

If the AFL and NRL with today's revenue haven't gone beyond 20, then there is a hint there for you that it wasn't sustainable and teams would have gone broke or been culled in the late 90's with or without the SL war.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

There was a year with 22 top flight clubs! 1997. Noticeably Brisbane Broncos got what they had set out to do: their monopoly of Brisbane! This is still occuring today with their CEO using flawed logic to further instill divisive discourse within the competition. All with one sole purpose; To maintain Broncos monopoly of Brisbane! The relocation chatter aids the Broncos agenda! The Broncos would rather the code infight within Sydney than see a second club challenging their monopoly on Brisbane. This club would have to be a Brisbane based entity. Their is absolutely no way a relocated Sydney club would work in Brisbane. And the Broncos know this ! They are once again spoiling to maintain their monopoly of Brisbane. And we have people whom can't see this tact right in front of our very eyes!

I wouldn't be pointing to 1997 as your argument that a 20 plus team competition is sustainable. The very reason why the number was cut to 14 following the war was because that is the number of clubs the revenue could sustain.

I agree with your points on Brisbane and the Broncos. A second team is long overdue and a relocated Sydney team would not work here.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Ian Heads book?, said the ARL had 7 of the top 10 programs on TV back in the early 90's.

Profits in those days were usually around the $8m dollar mark . which compares favourably with what there making today.

Are you trying to suggest that the game was bigger in the mid-ninties than it is now?

Today we have record revenues, record TV ratings, record participation, aggregate and average attendances higher than the peak in the 90's (1994).

 

[tri_colours]

[

Are you trying to suggest that the game was bigger in the mid-ninties than it is now?

Today we have record revenues, record TV ratings, record participation, aggregate and average attendances higher than the peak in the 90's (1994).

I'm just showing you a few numbers from 30 years ago. You make up your own mind.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

[



I'm just showing you a few numbers from 30 years ago. You make up your own mind.

It's not about me making up my mind, the numbers from today are greater in every area because the game has grown.

 

[Quicksilver]

I'm looking forward to expansion. I'm going to death-ride the life out of these teams when they inevitably hit a speed hump. Just like others have done to the Sydney teams.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Ok - well you'd better tell Stallion then not me. Would you agree that the game is bigger now than it was at any time in the 90's?

Was providing the information to the point....I'm not fighting with you

 

[Stallion]

I wouldn't be pointing to 1997 as your argument that a 20 plus team competition is sustainable. The very reason why the number was cut to 14 following the war was because that is the number of clubs the revenue could sustain.

I agree with your points on Brisbane and the Broncos. A second team is long overdue and a relocated Sydney team would not work here.

Lol. You are truelly mislead and delusional. Another contributor has looked into your deceiving aggregate claim and shot you down in flames! Yet you continue on with your destructive rhetoric? Amazing!

 

[Stallion]

Can you please provide a source / link for that



If the AFL and NRL with today's revenue haven't gone beyond 20, then there is a hint there for you that it wasn't sustainable and teams would have gone broke or been culled in the late 90's with or without the SL war.

Absolute garbage!The superleague war was a combination of disrespect by clubs that should have known better and defending the greedy position of the Broncos in Brisbane. News ltd didn't care if the fabric of the game was hurt or not! Their owner doesn't care for rugby league. Their position is to capitalise on the revenue streams the competition gives currently and make sure it doesn't get too big (in a way that other people will take note from other parts of the world ) Basically sustaining a policy of containment over the flagship competition of rugby LEAGUE in Australia. It's a if :"Lets make sure the secret (rugby league)doesn't get out and if it does do it in a bad way." Essentially making sure another code (union)continues on with growing it's worldwide relevance and at the same time containing and constraining rugby league.

 

[tri_colours]

It's not about me making up my mind, the numbers from today are greater in every area because the game has grown.

If we had 7 of top programs on TV than ratings weren't any better on TV.

If you take into account this was happening 30 years ago. Wow

A record TV deal - $90m

Unlike what others think the SL war really farked us up.

 

[Stallion]

It's not about me making up my mind, the numbers from today are greater in every area because the game has grown.

Depends what criteria you are using. To my way of thinking rugby league is not better off than it was in 1995. The only improvement has been the Melbourne Storm. The rest has been making up for mistakes (reinstating of the Rabbitohs & Gold Coast ) and continuing on with festering problems as a result of carving up the competition .(reduced rugby league footprint in the regions from Wollongong-Sydney & Central Coast plus the embarassing continuation of the Broncos monopoly of Brisbane.) To my way of thinking rugby league is not better off than it was in 1995.

 

[MrE_Assassin]

Brisbane is big enough for at least two clubs. Gold Coast service an extremely large and important junior area reaching throughout the NSW north Coast. So ideally; Brisbane2 , Central Coast Bears in the short-term ( very doable with infrastructure and juniors already in place) Then West Coast Pirates & either another NZ Team or (Melbourne2/Adelaide) for an ambitious expansion footprint. Working toward 20 teams is achievable. This should be done without the infighting(negative relocation talk etc) you refer to but as we know "Life was not meant to be easy "!

Just another way of looking at this whole thing but what if this is Greenberg sounding out a warning as part of a much larger expansion plan?

What if they have identified a 10-15 year plan where they bring in 2 new clubs for the next TV deal which brings in the extra game, and the warning is that the clubs have 10-15 years from that point to shape up/put forward cases for why they should remain in location, EOI for a potential move to any club willing and they outline the areas they want to move a team to, or for certain clubs to adjust their coverage areas?

 

[Perth Red]

Lo,nrl with a long term plan?youre having a laugh!

Brace yourself for the following excuses to come out in december for why expansion has been put on hold and won’t be reviewed until 2023:
1. Not enough talent to bring in additional clubs, weakening of current super competitive competition.
2. Tv don’t want it and game can’t afford two more mouths
3. Current clubs not secure enough to Bring in two more high risk options
4. Don’t want to destroy “fabric of the game”, have listened to fans and don’t think relocations will work

Then some rhetoric about not needing teams to grow the game and more games to be played in other areas blah blah blah

Been hearing it for 11 years!