Rationalisation of Sydney

[The Silverdale Phantom]

The Souths experience is a classic lesson.

Try tried to rationalise them out of the game, lost millions of dollars and now the rabbits have the strongest tv audience and are the biggest club in the nrl outside of Brisbane.

Go figure?!

Do they ever learn?

 

[MugaB]

The Souths experience is a classic lesson.

Try tried to rationalise them out of the game, lost millions of dollars and now the rabbits have the strongest tv audience and are the biggest club in the nrl outside of Brisbane.

Go figure?!

Yeah they culled them, big mistake, im saying get them up in brisbane now, with wayne bennett & co, at least try it for a few years till ANZ is rebuilt/refurbished, id say go now before wayne retires, and maybe they become the Swans of the NRL, the brisbane fans would get behind wayne, im sure the 30k of souffs memberships will still be along for the ride and even get more while up in suncorp, solves 2 issues * sydney oversaturation by one club, aswell as * adding the 2nd brisbane telecast every week, all whilst bennett struts in the dessing room every match, and it can start next season. No need to wait for the next tv deal

 

[flippikat]

This! Noone in the NRL has the balls to axe a team (and fair enough its not the easiest choice) so they should sit down with the Sydney clubs, tell them their plans, and offer them one last time to express interest in relocating

It then becomes survival of the fittest in Sydney with 18 and later 20 teams in the league and higher costs for the clubs

Expansion clubs (and any Sydney club who chose to relocate) will recieve concessions while "teething", and eventually the struggling clubs will either show themselves the door, or becomes stronger from it and the league ends up being able to maintain it

Exactly.

Let's go to 20 teams - I'd add West Coast Pirates, Brisbane 2 (call for Brisbane based bids, select the best business case), NZ 2 (As with Brisbane, call for bids, select the best), and Adelaide (Hey, this IS supposed to be a National Rugby League, yeah?)

If a larger competition works out, and all Sydney clubs remain viable (as some here suggest), great. Then we have a 20-team competition that's built to last, as-is.

But if they hit the wall, no bailout without relocation - and relocation would have to be to a strategically identified location... if they don't want that, then drop to NSW Cup.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Yeah they culled them, big mistake, im saying get them up in brisbane now, with wayne bennett & co, at least try it for a few years till ANZ is rebuilt/refurbished, id say go now before wayne retires, and maybe they become the Swans of the NRL, the brisbane fans would get behind wayne, im sure the 30k of souffs memberships will still be along for the ride and even get more while up in suncorp, solves 2 issues * sydney oversaturation by one club, aswell as * adding the 2nd brisbane telecast every week, all whilst bennett struts in the dessing room every match, and it can start next season. No need to wait for the next tv deal

Souths fans hate anything Queensland.

 

[adamkungl]

The Souths experience is a classic lesson.

Try tried to rationalise them out of the game, lost millions of dollars and now the rabbits have the strongest tv audience and are the biggest club in the nrl outside of Brisbane.

Go figure?!

Do they ever learn?

Souths were unfit for a national comp in 1999 and they were still unfit for a national comp when they came back in 2002.
They would have died again, and been beyond saving, if they weren't bought out by Crowe and Holmes a'Court.

The real lesson here is that clubs who are struggling financially need to make big decisions before those decisions are forced upon them by external parties or events.

Unjust as it was, the world continued on without Norths playing first grade. You may not like them, but Melbourne have more value to a national competition than the old Bears do, sadly. This is the reality of professional sport.

 

[MugaB]

Souths were unfit for a national comp in 1999 and they were still unfit for a national comp when they came back in 2002.
They would have died again, and been beyond saving, if they weren't bought out by Crowe and Holmes a'Court.

The real lesson here is that clubs who are struggling financially need to make big decisions before those decisions are forced upon them by external parties or events.

Unjust as it was, the world continued on without Norths playing first grade. You may not like them, but Melbourne have more value to a national competition than the old Bears do, sadly. This is the reality of professional sport.

So when/if roosters get relocated to Adelaide, will they be more valuable to the competition there or in bondi, where they are 1/9 of sydney instead of 1/1 of Adelaide.
Hindsight is great now that we know how well Melbourne has performed, North Sydney might have had a premierships or 2, with Maloney, Slater and Farah as there retiring spine last year. We might not be talking about rationalition, coz stallion wouldn't be on here, debating a need for North Sydney Bears.

 

[taipan]

Who’d have thought, a load of Sydney blokes don’t want change in Sydney but happy to let the Gold Coast fans lose their only team. what’s the saying about doing the same thing the same way?

Ikin is from the Gold Coast originally for a start, just for geography purposes not a Sydney suburb.Webster came from around Newcastle.

Yep a majority of Sydney based blokes who have been following and been involved in rugby league in this city, before you arrived in Perth.
IOW they may have some idea of the lie of the land in Sydney.
BTW Gould said the Gold Coast just needs the right people involved ,that will put them back on track.None wanted any out club moved or kicked out.
I usually find Gould too negative, but IMO he put forward a strong argument for retention of Sydney teams and expansion.
All you want is a Sydney team or two to be flicked, no understanding of Sydney fans' tribalism.
The point Gould made which is a no brainer, you lose a Sydney club, you lose their fans,. they won't be coming back.

Oh and Gould bagged Gallop,Smith(your hero),Grant,and Greenberg for when he asked, they had zero idea where the game is planned to be looking ahead 15 years.He also noted this putting a team here, and when it fails,"oh well that didn't work, we'll try again later," summed up NRL expansionary efforts.

 

[Stallion]

Sydney privilege strikes again, I'm afraid ..

It's called not whiteanting the competition. Expansion should occur with additional clubs. It's simple, but not for some!

 

[taipan]

This! Noone in the NRL has the balls to axe a team (and fair enough its not the easiest choice) so they should sit down with the Sydney clubs, tell them their plans, and offer them one last time to express interest in relocating

It then becomes survival of the fittest in Sydney with 18 and later 20 teams in the league and higher costs for the clubs

Expansion clubs (and any Sydney club who chose to relocate) will recieve concessions while "teething", and eventually the struggling clubs will either show themselves the door, or becomes stronger from it and the league ends up being able to maintain it

And you think clubs who are financially fit and likely to be chosen, are going to sit and take it lying down.There are legal avenues as recent times have shown.A club would only take concessions if nothing else was available.

What if the Storm gets into financial strife,they get minimal publicity as it is from Melbourne media, and not even on FTA there week after week.
Survival of the fittest can also apply to expansion clubs.Most of the expansion club have received huge legs up or been taken over by the NRL, and that includes extra loot according one media guy of about $5,m pa at one stage. to Melbourne.

All this BS about only Sydney clubs being privileged ,is just that BS.The Broncos have been privileged being in a one city situation, no other rl teams, making a fortune, yet receiving the same grants as smaller clubs.New clubs that come in are privileged ,to become one of the best sporting comps in this country.

 

[flippikat]

It's called not whiteanting the competition. Expansion should occur with additional clubs. It's simple, but not for some!

You say whiteanting, I say privilege..

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Souths were unfit for a national comp in 1999 and they were still unfit for a national comp when they came back in 2002.
They would have died again, and been beyond saving, if they weren't bought out by Crowe and Holmes a'Court.

The real lesson here is that clubs who are struggling financially need to make big decisions before those decisions are forced upon them by external parties or events.

Unjust as it was, the world continued on without Norths playing first grade. You may not like them, but Melbourne have more value to a national competition than the old Bears do, sadly. This is the reality of professional sport.

This is the reality of bullshit.

Melbourne are a waste of time.

They play boring football and their coach is poorly behaved. Their only function is to deny genuine and truthful teams good players.

 

[Stallion]

You say whiteanting, I say privilege..

We differ. Mathematics with respects to population and the areas these clubs cover are not being included in the reckless "rationalisation' ideas. Therefore it's clearly whiteanting. No issues with additional clubs for expansion at all from the people whom seek to maintain the massive advantage of existing clubs that are known Australia wide.

 

[Perth Red]

As much as fans hate it not all clubs are equal in regards to their value to the game. That's a hard thing for fans to swallow but its a business reality.

Like I said before Id expand with 4 clubs, keep TV contract to 8 games. Gould seems convinced LC's are going to stop being funders of the game in the future and that will see natural deaths of a number of clubs who havent invested in building their corporate and fan revenue. I dont care what they do with Sydney as long as they get off their hands and grow the game. Another 2-3 Broncos/Storm sized clubs will see smaller clubs facing harsh realities in years to come and the NRL wont have to make any tough decisions as the business will dictate it.

 

[MrE_Assassin]

Yes. It's a wrong fit for the code. These clubs thrive on their historical rivalry. It's a very cultural aspect with the northern Sydney area. Might add that the population of northern Sydney through to the Central Coast demands two top flight clubs.

Whilst NS and Manly had a good rivalry back in the day, I don't think it really has the same impact today as it did nearly 20 years ago. As the Bears fans demographic ages and the new generation of rugby league fans are growing up without having ever seen the Bears in the current competition, its safe to say that the rivalry has subsided a fair bit.

I think it is also folly to think that rivalries are created solely on the geographic location of a team. It also doesn't need to be steeped in a long history. The example I point to is the Manly/Melbourne rivalry. "The Battle of Brookie" as they call it and the consecutive GFs they played in with differing results has been brought out every year since when these two clubs come out to play. That in itself builds a rivalry. We just find it easy to build rivalries out of geographic locations. Grudge matches are just as good, in not better sometimes, than geographic derbies. At the end of the day its how it gets sold.

 

[MrE_Assassin]

Who said that, i mentioned that there was too many teams pocketed in the inner city area, from dogs, souths, easts, dragons and sharks. And to some extent tigers when in Leichardt.

Take out/relocate souths and easts, sydney actually is geographically spread out nicely, whilst dragons and sharks being the only two very close teams, more games in Wollongong, thins that out.
Id be seriously looking at central coast as a team, bears or otherwise but only after souths and roosters are relocated.

Again i cannot stress relocating a struggling team will not work, it has to be a team that is successful, that needs no direct junior/catchment ties, like the roosters or the storm (not that you would) i mean storm are basically in SEQ grabbing from the Qcup pool, and roosters bascally do the same in NSW,
Both teams could be based in Darwin and Adelaide, or Mars and it would be absolutely no different.
I think with Souths being where they are could benefit by being the Broncos rival,
If they become South Brisbane Rabbitohs too

You must be on some next level crack if you think that removing/relocating BOTH the Roosters and Souths is a good idea. For starters the rivalry has been built up over the years and continues to be promoted year in, year out as THE BIGGEST RIVALRY the NRL has. Removing both clubs from their traditional areas would be like sitting in a bathtub with a toaster and slitting your wrists at the same time.

 

[flippikat]

We differ. Mathematics with respects to population and the areas these clubs cover are not being included in the reckless "rationalisation' ideas. Therefore it's clearly whiteanting. No issues with additional clubs for expansion at all from the people whom seek to maintain the massive advantage of existing clubs that are known Australia wide.

Although I believe the NRL cannot sustain the current number of Sydney clubs in the long term, trying to arbitrarily pick the winners and losers in any rationalization is clearly something the NRL is unwilling to do.

With that in mind, I'm willing to call (as they say in poker).

I proposed above an expansion to 20 teams with Perth, Brisbane 2, NZ 2 and Adelaide being added - in a kind-of re-run of 1995.

That could be all at once, in lots of two (Perth & Brisbane 2, then NZ2 & Adelaide).. or a team at a time (Perth then Brisbane 2 to give the best bid time to emerge, the NZ2, then Adelaide).

If your argument is right, the existing Sydney footprint thrives and coaching & playing depth grows to make all teams competitive, great.. we'll have a 20 team competition that needs no massive changes for some time. I'd be ok if that happens.

If adding 4 teams shows up the oversaturation of Sydney, however.. then the NRL needs to talk relocation or demotion to some clubs.

That way we either get the playing strength consolidated by going to less than 20 clubs, OR the broke club gets replaced by a Brisbane 3 or NZ 3.. or even Melbourne 2 or Perth 2 that may add something of value to TV deals.

Sounds good?

Do you believe that would deliver what you promise?

 

[greenBV4]

Gould seems convinced LC's are going to stop being funders of the game in the future and that will see natural deaths of a number of clubs who havent invested in building their corporate and fan revenue.

How many clubs have zero ties to pokie money? And if, for example, pokies were banned from outside of casinos tomorrow, how many clubs that do get money from pokies would still survive?

Melbourne sold off their only hotel & pokies this year, and are about to launch "Storm Money" (from what I can tell its financing and insurance), and theyre also looking into a fan ownership model like the Green Bay Packers

Sharks seem pretty good with their developments, I think the Titans have a sizeable ammount of land with a golf club/course and a housing estate (?)

Anything else?

 

[adamkungl]

This is the reality of bullshit.

Melbourne are a waste of time.

They play boring football and their coach is poorly behaved. Their only function is to deny genuine and truthful teams good players.

Bring back the NSWRL Premiership!

 

[adamkungl]

So when/if roosters get relocated to Adelaide, will they be more valuable to the competition there or in bondi, where they are 1/9 of sydney instead of 1/1 of Adelaide.

Marginally perhaps. East Sydney is the most valuable location in Australia. We're sitting on Mayfair and Park Lane and the government's building us a hotel.

I don't doubt any Sydney club would improve their value by moving to Perth or Adelaide. The question is by how much. If you moved the most successful Sydney teams (Roosters, Souths) you'd get a marginal improvement.
But if one of the clubs playing out of a council park in a suburb with no national significance were to choose to move to Adelaide or Perth, they'd get a huge improvement in value.

 

[Perth Red]

How many clubs have zero ties to pokie money? And if, for example, pokies were banned from outside of casinos tomorrow, how many clubs that do get money from pokies would still survive?

Melbourne sold off their only hotel & pokies this year, and are about to launch "Storm Money" (from what I can tell its financing and insurance), and theyre also looking into a fan ownership model like the Green Bay Packers

Sharks seem pretty good with their developments, I think the Titans have a sizeable ammount of land with a golf club/course and a housing estate (?)

Anything else?

Roosters and Raiders have big non LC property and other investments. Penrith have started to move into non LC related activities. The Sydney clubs most at risk at this time if pokies dried up would be Panthers, Eels, Wests and Bulldogs. All of those are heavily reliant on $millions a year from their LC's. Knights outside of Sydney are now also heavily reliant. Sharks, Souths and Dragons would be least at risk as they get little or no LC funding.