Rationalisation of Sydney

[TheFrog]

Adamkungl replied to my earlier post and agreed with 3 out of 4 of my points. Simple as that. Read back and you'll find it.

 

[MugaB]

Adamkungl replied to my earlier post and agreed with 3 out of 4 of my points. Simple as that. Read back and you'll find it.

Oh its about 3/4 points, not 3/4 clubs or locations, see its easy when you explain it properly

 

[The Great Dane]

States the expert on players and player pool talent! Lol

Do I have to explain the bleeding obvious to you again Stallion!?

Imagine that each player pool is a pizza and each player pool pizza has eight slices of prime talent.

Now imagine that there is one club (in this case the Storm) that wants to eat the pizza, because they are the only ones that want to eat the pizza they can eat all the slices, and there for they sign all the talent.

Now imagine that in a different dimension the Rams, Chargers, and Crushers all survived alongside the Storm, and they all wanted some of the same pizza. Well instead of the Storm getting the whole eight slices to themselves, like they did in the real world, they would have had to share the pizza with the three other clubs, and best case scenario each club would have got two slices.

In that hypothetical scenario, instead of one big fat club with more food then they could eat we would have had 4 clubs that had barely eaten and would be hungry for more, i.e. instead of one really strong club we would have had four weak ones.

 

[Perth Red]

Do I have to explain the bleeding obvious to you again Stallion!?

Imagine that each player pool is a pizza and each player pool pizza has eight slices of prime talent.

Now imagine that there is one club (in this case the Storm) that wants to eat the pizza, because they are the only ones that want to eat the pizza they can eat all the slices, and there for they sign all the talent.

Now imagine that in a different dimension the Rams, Chargers, and Crushers all survived alongside the Storm, and they all wanted some of the same pizza. Well instead of the Storm getting the whole eight slices to themselves, like they did in the real world, they would have had to share the pizza with the three other clubs, and best case scenario each club would have got two slices. Then instead of one big fat club with more food then they could eat we would have had 4 clubs that had barely eaten and would be hungry for more, i.e. instead of one really strong club we would have had four weak ones.

Kind of disagree, I bet there is a lot of 18 year old talent that doesn't get picked up and nurtured by NRL clubs and never gets the opportunity to kick on. There are only so many development places available and that is directly relateble to the amount of clubs there are. My analogy would be you cook a 12" pizza if your feeding 4 but if you have 8 around the table you cook a big arse family sized one.

If the NRL pumped $1million a year into setting up a jnr elite pathway in PNG I suspect within 5 years we would see that pizza even larger. The NRL's cutting of funding to the NZRL shows how short sighted they are in addressing the talent pool issue, or they dont believe there is an issue?

Back to your analogy, rather than having an overweight fat kid stuffing pizza into his pockets for later we would have 4 kids suitably nourished, enough is as good as a feast after all!

 

[Stallion]

Do I have to explain the bleeding obvious to you again Stallion!?

Imagine that each player pool is a pizza and each player pool pizza has eight slices of prime talent.

Now imagine that there is one club (in this case the Storm) that wants to eat the pizza, because they are the only ones that want to eat the pizza they can eat all the slices, and there for they sign all the talent.

Now imagine that in a different dimension the Rams, Chargers, and Crushers all survived alongside the Storm, and they all wanted some of the same pizza. Well instead of the Storm getting the whole eight slices to themselves, like they did in the real world, they would have had to share the pizza with the three other clubs, and best case scenario each club would have got two slices.

In that hypothetical scenario, instead of one big fat club with more food then they could eat we would have had 4 clubs that had barely eaten and would be hungry for more, i.e. instead of one really strong club we would have had four weak ones.

Simple remedy You make more pizzas! Proactive and further development of the product you simpleton! Meaning growth in juniors as a result of additional clubs is one positive tact. You can't see that?Others can.

 

[The Great Dane]

Kind of disagree, I bet there is a lot of 18 year old talent that doesn't get picked up and nurtured by NRL clubs and never gets the opportunity to kick on. There are only so many development places available and that is directly relateble to the amount of clubs there are. My analogy would be you cook a 12" pizza if your feeding 4 but if you have 8 around the table you cook a big arse family sized one.

If the NRL pumped $1million a year into setting up a jnr elite pathway in PNG I suspect within 5 years we would see that pizza even larger. The NRL's cutting of funding to the NZRL shows how short sighted they are in addressing the talent pool issue, or they dont believe there is an issue?

Back to your analogy, rather than having an overweight fat kid stuffing pizza into his pockets for later we would have 4 kids suitably nourished, enough is as good as a feast after all!

You kind of disagree because you aren't addressing the question at hand, you are conflating it with another.

The argument isn't if there was/is enough talent to support the Storm, Crushers, Chargers, and Rams, that is a totally different question.

The idea that has been presented is whether or not in a hypothetical world if the Crushers survived if they would have signed the great players (i.e. Smith, Slater, Cronk, etc) that the Storm signed and more or less taken their place in history.

It's almost certain that the answer to the later is no they wouldn't have basically taken the Storm's place in history, because if the Crushers survived then there's no reason to believe that the other clubs that were following the same recruitment practices that eventually netted all those great players for the Storm wouldn't have survived as well, and going on from that point it's extremely unlikely (borderline impossible in the real world) that if all four were fishing in the same player pool (as they were) that just one of them would have come away with all the best talent from that pool.

Also, whether you like it or not it is a warning about putting to much pressure on a talent pool, because if all those clubs had survived and all of them continued to fish the same waters, as was almost inevitably going to happen, then you would have ended up with that talent pool being over fished and everybody coming away with smaller catches.

The NRL's cutting of funding to the NZRL shows how short sighted they are in addressing the talent pool issue, or they dont believe there is an issue?

Can you really blame the NRL for cutting funding to the NZRL?

Not only did the NZRL refused to allow the NRL anyway meaningful way of tracking how the money was being spent, they also have a history of pissing money up against a wall, so under those circumstances can you really blame the NRL for not being willing investors?

If it was me I wouldn't give them a cent unless they agreed to come under the preview of the ARLC and NRL, i.e. basically merge the NZRL into the NRL and make the ARLC a SANZAAR style multinational governing body.

Of course they'd get a rep on the ARLC and the NZRL would more or less be treated like the state bodies and get grants similar to NSWRL and QRL, but in return they'd be answerable to the ARLC.

That'd be the best outcome for everybody in my opinion, it'll never happen though.

 

[Generalzod]

#################

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Based on comments in this and other threads I think most can agree on a few points:

• Sydney is oversaturated
• Brisbane is undersupplied
• We don't have enough big city markets represented in the game
• We need to expand our national footprint

From most comments the national footprint looks something like this:

North QLD
Brisbane x 2
Gold Coast
New Zealand x 2
Canberra
Melbourne
Perth
Adelaide
Newcastle
Sydney
Central Coast
Wollongong

Here is how I would achieve that footprint whilst sticking to 18 teams to not spread the revenue pie to thinly:

1. North QLD Cowboys
2. Brisbane Broncos
3. Brisbane 2
4. Gold Coast
5. Auckland Warriors
6. New Zealand 2
7. Canberra Raiders
8. Melbourne Storm
9. Newcastle Knights
10. Central Coast Sea Eagles (Manly relocated to the Central Coast)
11. Sydney Roosters (becoming the club representing the affluent areas of Sydney to the East and North, both the Swans and Waratahs pull most of their fans from the East and North whilst playing and basing themselves out of Moore Park so why not the Roosters?)
12. South Sydney Rabbitohs
13. St George Illawarra Dragons (fully relocated to Wollongong)
14. Canterbury Bulldogs
15. Parramatta Eels
16. Penrith Panthers
17. West Coast Tigers (Wests Tigers relocated to Perth, colours, logo remain unchanged with even a major part of their name retained)
18. Adelaide Sharks

Benefits:

• True national footprint in Australia which opens up a couple of new markets and TV slots
• Consolidation of our position in Brisbane and the Central Coast
• Massive boost for the game in Perth, Adelaide and New Zealand
• Sea Eagles, Sharks, Tigers & Dragons brands remain in the NRL and are given a chance to build in a new market with a higher (long-term) ceiling to growth than they have in their current location
• The rivalries and histories that these clubs have are retained in the NRL
• Manly's stadium woes are solved and they can take advantage of a ready made fan-base
• The Tiger's can stop splitting their games between four home grounds and can take advantage of a ready-made fan base
• Most people watch their team on TV these days so it is not so important where they play, but or the fans that do love to attend their team's games, the clubs / NRL need to get creative and ensure that the Sydney fans of the relocated clubs have access to 'away / Sydney' memberships.

 

[Stallion]

Based on comments in this and other threads I think most can agree on a few points:

• Sydney is oversaturated
• Brisbane is undersupplied
• We don't have enough big city markets represented in the game
• We need to expand our national footprint

From most comments the national footprint looks something like this:

North QLD
Brisbane x 2
Gold Coast
New Zealand x 2
Canberra
Melbourne
Perth
Adelaide
Newcastle
Sydney
Central Coast
Wollongong

Here is how I would achieve that footprint whilst sticking to 18 teams to not spread the revenue pie to thinly:

1. North QLD Cowboys
2. Brisbane Broncos
3. Brisbane 2
4. Gold Coast
5. Auckland Warriors
6. New Zealand 2
7. Canberra Raiders
8. Melbourne Storm
9. Newcastle Knights
10. Central Coast Sea Eagles (Manly relocated to the Central Coast)
11. Sydney Roosters (becoming the club representing the affluent areas of Sydney to the East and North, both the Swans and Waratahs pull most of their fans from the East and North whilst playing and basing themselves out of Moore Park so why not the Roosters?)
12. South Sydney Rabbitohs
13. St George Illawarra Dragons (fully relocated to Wollongong)
14. Canterbury Bulldogs
15. Parramatta Eels
16. Penrith Panthers
17. West Coast Tigers (Wests Tigers relocated to Perth, colours, logo remain unchanged with even a major part of their name retained)
18. Adelaide Sharks

Benefits:

• True national footprint in Australia which opens up a couple of new markets and TV slots
• Consolidation of our position in Brisbane and the Central Coast
• Massive boost for the game in Perth, Adelaide and New Zealand
• Sea Eagles, Sharks, Tigers & Dragons brands remain in the NRL and are given a chance to build in a new market with a higher (long-term) ceiling to growth than they have in their current location
• The rivalries and histories that these clubs have are retained in the NRL
• Manly's stadium woes are solved and they can take advantage of a ready made fan-base
• The Tiger's can stop splitting their games between four home grounds and can take advantage of a ready-made fan base
• Most people watch their team on TV these days so it is not so important where they play, but or the fans that do love to attend their team's games, the clubs / NRL need to get creative and ensure that the Sydney fans of the relocated clubs have access to 'away / Sydney' memberships.

Wrong and dumb.You started with an outright falsehood : 'Sydney market is oversaturated. ' That's the sly one that gets through to the keeper. Go back to school . Do your mathematics .Count the people from the Illawarra , throughout Sydney and to the Central Coast. Divide this large population by the 9 Clubs within these regions. The figures for each current top flight club are well over 600000 plus. At the same time you have clubs that have locality populations less than the figures averaged out over the regions quoted. But you continue with the oversaturated line as well as ignoring the established fanbase advantage of these clubs in these areas and elsewhere . Incredible! You are a consistent pest on this site. But you have a right to be so. Shame on you!

 

[flippikat]

1. North QLD Cowboys
2. Brisbane Broncos
3. Brisbane 2
4. Gold Coast
5. Auckland Warriors
6. New Zealand 2
7. Canberra Raiders
8. Melbourne Storm
9. Newcastle Knights
10. Central Coast Sea Eagles (Manly relocated to the Central Coast)
11. Sydney Roosters (becoming the club representing the affluent areas of Sydney to the East and North, both the Swans and Waratahs pull most of their fans from the East and North whilst playing and basing themselves out of Moore Park so why not the Roosters?)
12. South Sydney Rabbitohs
13. St George Illawarra Dragons (fully relocated to Wollongong)
14. Canterbury Bulldogs
15. Parramatta Eels
16. Penrith Panthers
17. West Coast Tigers (Wests Tigers relocated to Perth, colours, logo remain unchanged with even a major part of their name retained)
18. Adelaide Sharks.

Makes sense to me.

Sure, Perth don't get the Pirates brand they've been lining-up.. and the Central Coast have to take on the Sea-Eagles again after the Northern Eagles debacle. (I could equally argue that Roosters to Gosford & Manly at a new boutique stadium somewhere north of the bridge *may* work - if they can pull off the stadium).

 

[Perth Red]

Based on comments in this and other threads I think most can agree on a few points:

• Sydney is oversaturated
• Brisbane is undersupplied
• We don't have enough big city markets represented in the game
• We need to expand our national footprint

From most comments the national footprint looks something like this:

North QLD
Brisbane x 2
Gold Coast
New Zealand x 2
Canberra
Melbourne
Perth
Adelaide
Newcastle
Sydney
Central Coast
Wollongong

I’d agree with this. That’s 13 non Sydney teams we need. NRL needs to decide how many Sydney teams it wants and that will dictate if we end up with a 18 team Comp (5 Sydney clubs) or 20 team Comp (7sydney clubs)

One way to rationalise Sydney might be to go revisit the original plan put forward in 1995 with new teams representing regions jointly owned by traditional clubs. Back in 95 the Sydney clubs seemed to be not too opposed to this model. So you could end up with a south coast somethings owned by Cronulla and dragons. North Sydney something’s owned by manly and bears West Sydney somethings owned by west and bulldogs and Sydney city some things owned by roosters and Souths. The origin clubs playing in a relaunched better covered and hyped second division feeding the superclub.

That would give city, south, north and west Sydney superclubs, parramatta and Penrith giving an 18 team Comp. If we don’t bring in one of the 13 listed.

This way we also only need to work on getting two new stadiums, one in northern suburbs and one in southern suburbs. Waratahs could share the northern stadium and Aleague the southern. City to play at allianz and west Sydney to play at bankwest.

 

[Stallion]

I’d agree with this. That’s 13 non Sydney teams we need. NRL needs to decide how many Sydney teams it wants and that will dictate if we end up with a 18 team Comp (5 Sydney clubs) or 20 team Comp (7sydney clubs)

One way to rationalise Sydney might be to go revisit the original plan put forward in 1995 with new teams representing regions jointly owned by traditional clubs. Back in 95 the Sydney clubs seemed to be not too opposed to this model. So you could end up with a south coast somethings owned by Cronulla and dragons. North Sydney something’s owned by manly and bears West Sydney somethings owned by west and bulldogs and Sydney city some things owned by roosters and Souths. The origin clubs playing in a relaunched better covered and hyped second division feeding the superclub.

That would give city, south, north and west Sydney superclubs, parramatta and Penrith giving an 18 team Comp. If we don’t bring in one of the 13 listed.

This way we also only need to work on getting two new stadiums, one in northern suburbs and one in southern suburbs. Waratahs could share the northern stadium and Aleague the southern. City to play at allianz and west Sydney to play at bankwest.

Disastrous thinking !

 

[MugaB]

Based on comments in this and other threads I think most can agree on a few points:

• Sydney is oversaturated
• Brisbane is undersupplied
• We don't have enough big city markets represented in the game
• We need to expand our national footprint

From most comments the national footprint looks something like this:

North QLD
Brisbane x 2
Gold Coast
New Zealand x 2
Canberra
Melbourne
Perth
Adelaide
Newcastle
Sydney
Central Coast
Wollongong

Here is how I would achieve that footprint whilst sticking to 18 teams to not spread the revenue pie to thinly:

1. North QLD Cowboys
2. Brisbane Broncos
3. Brisbane 2
4. Gold Coast
5. Auckland Warriors
6. New Zealand 2
7. Canberra Raiders
8. Melbourne Storm
9. Newcastle Knights
10. Central Coast Sea Eagles (Manly relocated to the Central Coast)
11. Sydney Roosters (becoming the club representing the affluent areas of Sydney to the East and North, both the Swans and Waratahs pull most of their fans from the East and North whilst playing and basing themselves out of Moore Park so why not the Roosters?)
12. South Sydney Rabbitohs
13. St George Illawarra Dragons (fully relocated to Wollongong)
14. Canterbury Bulldogs
15. Parramatta Eels
16. Penrith Panthers
17. West Coast Tigers (Wests Tigers relocated to Perth, colours, logo remain unchanged with even a major part of their name retained)
18. Adelaide Sharks

Benefits:

• True national footprint in Australia which opens up a couple of new markets and TV slots
• Consolidation of our position in Brisbane and the Central Coast
• Massive boost for the game in Perth, Adelaide and New Zealand
• Sea Eagles, Sharks, Tigers & Dragons brands remain in the NRL and are given a chance to build in a new market with a higher (long-term) ceiling to growth than they have in their current location
• The rivalries and histories that these clubs have are retained in the NRL
• Manly's stadium woes are solved and they can take advantage of a ready made fan-base
• The Tiger's can stop splitting their games between four home grounds and can take advantage of a ready-made fan base
• Most people watch their team on TV these days so it is not so important where they play, but or the fans that do love to attend their team's games, the clubs / NRL need to get creative and ensure that the Sydney fans of the relocated clubs have access to 'away / Sydney' memberships.

Yeah you have a plan, but its relocating the wrong teams, to the wrong areas
Manly to gosford? Been done and failed
Wests out of Sydney? They have a catchment of both balmain to Campbelltown, plus you alienate all those areas of rugby league, so thats another fail,
cronulla to Adelaide, maybe. but..

I would be moving Souths to Brisbane,
And Roosters to Adelaide, as both don't upset the footprint as far as crowds and catchments, 30k of south members but are not showing up game day, 15k members at roosters, less at game day, and they are the premiers.
Porting a successful team to a new city, should have a better chance than a struggling team. Eg. Wests

With those 2 teams elsewhere, manly would be moreso north, cronulla would be moreso south and dogs inner west
The congestion in the inner city would ease.

perth should start fresh, pirates, central coast maybe? A 2nd NZ, possibly but only as long as warriors are doing well, which isnt happening now, But I'd looking at moving on those 2 city clubs first. Besides rivalries are on the field, not in the actual city they are in

 

[mongoose]

Sharks, Sea Eagles and Tigers are probably the teams that are most vulnerable but I expect the NRL will just continue to play the waiting game and hope one of these teams becomes insolvent so they can jump in. I doubt the NRL will make any hard decisions before that.

 

[tri_colours]

Based on comments in this and other threads I think most can agree on a few points:

• Sydney is oversaturated
• Brisbane is undersupplied
• We don't have enough big city markets represented in the game
• We need to expand our national footprint

From most comments the national footprint looks something like this:

North QLD
Brisbane x 2
Gold Coast
New Zealand x 2
Canberra
Melbourne
Perth
Adelaide
Newcastle
Sydney
Central Coast
Wollongong

Here is how I would achieve that footprint whilst sticking to 18 teams to not spread the revenue pie to thinly:

1. North QLD Cowboys
2. Brisbane Broncos
3. Brisbane 2
4. Gold Coast
5. Auckland Warriors
6. New Zealand 2
7. Canberra Raiders
8. Melbourne Storm
9. Newcastle Knights
10. Central Coast Sea Eagles (Manly relocated to the Central Coast)
11. Sydney Roosters (becoming the club representing the affluent areas of Sydney to the East and North, both the Swans and Waratahs pull most of their fans from the East and North whilst playing and basing themselves out of Moore Park so why not the Roosters?)
12. South Sydney Rabbitohs
13. St George Illawarra Dragons (fully relocated to Wollongong)
14. Canterbury Bulldogs
15. Parramatta Eels
16. Penrith Panthers
17. West Coast Tigers (Wests Tigers relocated to Perth, colours, logo remain unchanged with even a major part of their name retained)
18. Adelaide Sharks

Benefits:

• True national footprint in Australia which opens up a couple of new markets and TV slots
• Consolidation of our position in Brisbane and the Central Coast
• Massive boost for the game in Perth, Adelaide and New Zealand
• Sea Eagles, Sharks, Tigers & Dragons brands remain in the NRL and are given a chance to build in a new market with a higher (long-term) ceiling to growth than they have in their current location
• The rivalries and histories that these clubs have are retained in the NRL
• Manly's stadium woes are solved and they can take advantage of a ready made fan-base
• The Tiger's can stop splitting their games between four home grounds and can take advantage of a ready-made fan base
• Most people watch their team on TV these days so it is not so important where they play, but or the fans that do love to attend their team's games, the clubs / NRL need to get creative and ensure that the Sydney fans of the relocated clubs have access to 'away / Sydney' memberships.

We do need to expand our national footprint but not at the expense of what we've got!.

Sydney maybe oversaturated but that's what makes it so valuable.

 

[Perth Red]

RUGBY league broadcaster Channel 9 wants to kill off an existing NRL club to make way for a new Brisbane team in a move that could leave one of Sydney’s nine traditional clubs facing extinction.

The network wants – and is likely to get – the competition changes by 2023 when the next multi-billion dollar TV broadcast deal is in place.

Channel 9’s director of sport Tom Malone has told The Sunday Telegraph the network is against increasing the number of teams from 16 and wants at least one club to go to accomodate a new team.

“That could come from another team being relocated there, or better still another club being discontinued and a new club established in Brisbane,” Mr Malone said. “In a perfect world you’d probably have one or two less teams

“What clubs should go? I’m not going to get into that one. It’s a hard decision but probably one that needs to be made in the longer term interests of the game.”

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...b/news-story/fa6e23a82d259773416d11e91a66502c

 

[mongoose]

who the F**k is Tom Malone and why does he think he knows whats best for the NRL? He is most likely some AFL loving twerp from Melbourne

 

[flippikat]

RUGBY league broadcaster Channel 9 wants to kill off an existing NRL club to make way for a new Brisbane team in a move that could leave one of Sydney’s nine traditional clubs facing extinction.

The network wants – and is likely to get – the competition changes by 2023 when the next multi-billion dollar TV broadcast deal is in place.

Yep, and that's where the impetus for rationalizing Sydney is gonna come from.

The broadcasters will demand changes to the balance of the competition, probably without growing the number of clubs. The NRL *May* be able to wrangle 18 clubs if they have good negotiators, but I don't see Fox or Nine (or anyone else for that matter) wanting more than 9 games in the current broadcasting/economic climate.

But I can see them wanting a competition with teams in every decent population centre and a REAL derby outside of Sydney.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Makes sense to me.

Sure, Perth don't get the Pirates brand they've been lining-up.. and the Central Coast have to take on the Sea-Eagles again after the Northern Eagles debacle. (I could equally argue that Roosters to Gosford & Manly at a new boutique stadium somewhere north of the bridge *may* work - if they can pull off the stadium).

Yep not a bad idea. I went with my proposal because as things stand now with Manly in trouble with their ground and the Roosters owning significant land assets in Bondi.

However, either way I’d be happy as long as whichever clubs goes to the Central Coast fully embrace the area and whichever club stays in Sydney fully embraces the affluent North and East and plays out of the new Allianz (this May require a name change for Manly)

 

[titoelcolombiano]

I’d agree with this. That’s 13 non Sydney teams we need. NRL needs to decide how many Sydney teams it wants and that will dictate if we end up with a 18 team Comp (5 Sydney clubs) or 20 team Comp (7sydney clubs)

One way to rationalise Sydney might be to go revisit the original plan put forward in 1995 with new teams representing regions jointly owned by traditional clubs. Back in 95 the Sydney clubs seemed to be not too opposed to this model. So you could end up with a south coast somethings owned by Cronulla and dragons. North Sydney something’s owned by manly and bears West Sydney somethings owned by west and bulldogs and Sydney city some things owned by roosters and Souths. The origin clubs playing in a relaunched better covered and hyped second division feeding the superclub.

That would give city, south, north and west Sydney superclubs, parramatta and Penrith giving an 18 team Comp. If we don’t bring in one of the 13 listed.

This way we also only need to work on getting two new stadiums, one in northern suburbs and one in southern suburbs. Waratahs could share the northern stadium and Aleague the southern. City to play at allianz and west Sydney to play at bankwest.

This would have been a good way to go in the 90s definitely. You would have then been able to preserve the NSWRL and all of its famous clubs as is and they would no longer face financial issues or the need to move from their traditional grounds... pretty much what happened in Brisbane once the Broncos came in and despite some bitterness from old fans, the game is bigger than ever in Brisbane which would be further solidified with a second club.