Redcliffe most likely to be the next expansion team according to the Telegraph

[Wily Ole Dog]

Storm and Broncos

I think there is certainly a great deal of tribalism around the Broncos. It’s a qld vs nsw thing

 

[Perth Red]

I think there is certainly a great deal of tribalism around the Broncos. It’s a qld vs nsw thing

So you agree that tribalism, whatever that is meant to mean in an NRL context, doesnt have to be the next suburb or even in the same city? So a Perth team could be just as tribal in the NRL as any other club?

 

[Wily Ole Dog]

I don’t think so. Nobody hates the West Aussies so who would they have a rivalry with?

 

[Perth Red]

I don’t think so. Nobody hates the West Aussies so who would they have a rivalry with?

Just need to pick a fight, who'd have thought we'd see a rivalry between a Sydney northern suburb and Melbourne? The way people move around these days there is no real historic rivalry in areas anymore, its just created through events rather than geography. The modern day tribalism exists from attachment to a club, then that club through either GF's, on field battles or off field arguments creating a bit of friction with another club. It can happen anywhere.

 

[tri_colours]

Just need to pick a fight, who'd have thought we'd see a rivalry between a Sydney northern suburb and Melbourne? The way people move around these days there is no real historic rivalry in areas anymore, its just created through events rather than geography. The modern day tribalism exists from attachment to a club, then that club through either GF's, on field battles or off field arguments creating a bit of friction with another club. It can happen anywhere.

I think Easts and South's would disagree.

 

[Perth Red]

I think Easts and South's would disagree.

That's not a modern rivalry, and dont Souths say that most of their fans come from across Sydney now? to say rivalry only exists with neighboring suburbs that have had clubs for 100 years is clearly incorrect. Tribalism isn't reliant on rivalry, it is reliant on connection, identification and commitment to a group. Something those who spout on about tribalism seem to miss understand. What they really mean is rivalry and rivalry doesn't only rely solely on history and geography, though it may be related to both.

 

[siv]

Perth would have revenge rivalry with Melbourne who took their spot

 

[Perth Red]

Perth would have revenge rivalry with Melbourne who took their spot

I think Warriors would actually be great rivals for us, there is a massive Kiwi population in Perth and I reckon the Pirates and Warriors going at it in a 50-50 filled stadium could be built into one. Yeh Melbourne is obvious given the Reds fall out and the rivalry between WA and Vic in AFL. Then whoever we have a blue with or beat/lose in a GF could be built up. Like I said it only takes a bit of biff or a player poached or two chairmen or coaches to have a pop at each other and bingo it gives the media something to talk up and away we go.

 

[MugaB]

I think Warriors would actually be great rivals for us, there is a massive Kiwi population in Perth and I reckon the Pirates and Warriors going at it in a 50-50 filled stadium could be built into one. Yeh Melbourne is obvious given the Reds fall out and the rivalry between WA and Vic in AFL. Then whoever we have a blue with or beat/lose in a GF could be built up. Like I said it only takes a bit of biff or a player poached or two chairmen or coaches to have a pop at each other and bingo it gives the media something to talk up and away we go.

Perth vs Brisbane2 ala Reds vs Crushers, aswell as cowboys vs warriors all from 1995

 

[tri_colours]

That's not a modern rivalry, and dont Souths say that most of their fans come from across Sydney now? to say rivalry only exists with neighboring suburbs that have had clubs for 100 years is clearly incorrect. Tribalism isn't reliant on rivalry, it is reliant on connection, identification and commitment to a group. Something those who spout on about tribalism seem to miss understand. What they really mean is rivalry and rivalry doesn't only rely solely on history and geography, though it may be related to both.

Souths might say that, but that's only because Souths have stolen much of our territory over the years.

If its only the modern ones your interested in there's always plenty of extra feeling when the Cowboys play Brisbane just as there will be against Brisbane2. Everybody likes to get one up on Brisbane after all the whinging they've done over the years.

 

[The Great Dane]

Souths might say that, but that's only because Souths have stolen much of our territory over the years.

If its only the modern ones your interested in there's always plenty of extra feeling when the Cowboys play Brisbane just as there will be against Brisbane2. Everybody likes to get one up on Brisbane after all the whinging they've done over the years.

Broncos vs Cowboys isn't a geographical rivalry either, it's a big brother vs little brother sort of deal...

 

[Pippen94]

You'll have to excuse me for being sceptical. We have enough suburban teams we don't need to waste another NRL spot on an isolated suburb that isn't really Brisbane at all.

Would represent Morton Bay.

 

[Pippen94]

Broncos vs Cowboys isn't a geographical rivalry either, it's a big brother vs little brother sort of deal...

North Qld rivalry with Brisbane exists outside of football - talk of creating separate state. Definitely geographical.

 

[Pippen94]

Yeah for a Redcliffe owned NRL club to have the best chance of meeting the full potential of a second Brisbane club they'd have to have a totally new brand and play all of their games out of a central stadium.

So even if the Dolphins own the club, the NRL club wouldn't be called the Dolphins, they wouldn't be geographically associated with Redcliffe, or wear Dolphins colours, and they'd play out of a stadium in Brisbane, probably Suncorp.

Any other way and it's just a really stupid idea.

Brisbane can sustain 3 clubs. All areas large enough in terms of population, all with advantages of being in strongest rugby league town in world. Weak knock of broncos is selling game short.

 

[The Great Dane]

Brisbane can sustain 3 clubs. All areas large enough in terms of population, all with advantages of being in strongest rugby league town in world. Weak knock of broncos is selling game short.

Brisbane probably can support 3 clubs, but the question isn't can Brisbane do it, it's whether or not they should do it.

On the should grounds the answer is they probably shouldn't, because a third Brisbane club is going to come at the expense of a club in either Perth, Adelaide, or NZ, and that isn't a good trade.

 

[Pippen94]

Redcliffe could be the new parramatta.

Ipswich would be e

No it wasn't, it was based on class.

The upper class Sea Eagles with silver spoons in their mouths, living in their big houses in the ritzy part of town, and buying up all the best players vs the working class Magpies, who lived on the wrong side of the tracks in their fibro houses, who couldn't afford to keep all their best players at the club because the Sea Eagles would buy as many of them as possible out from underneath them.

Ipswich shouldn't happen for a very long time (maybe never), and you keep bringing up the Bombers but nobody is suggesting that the Bombers is a good fit for the second Brisbane club or that they should get a license.

LOL.

If you think that the Tigers are dominating Campbelltown I'd hate to see what your definition of mediocrity is, let alone failure.

You know when you played footy that local club that is more successful than the others that everybody loves to hate? In Morton bay that's the Dolphins.

Expecting people to suddenly start supporting a club that they hate with a passion in large numbers is simply unrealistic, it would take generational change before that happened for the Dolphins, and the NRL can't afford to wait generations for a club to become cemented, especially when competition like the Broncos is just down the road.

Firstly there is a difference between bagging the Dolphins, or for that matter Redcliffe, and simply saying that they aren't the right fit for an NRL license at the moment.

Secondly, comparing Canberra to Redcliffe is comparing apples and oranges, but I will say this, if Redcliffe came into the NRL as the second Brisbane club I'd expect that once the novelty effect wore off that they would pull similar numbers across the board to those that the Raiders pull (the only major exception being sponsorship, Redcliffe'd pull way bigger sponsors from Brisbane then the Raiders could dream of), and being a club playing the most popular sport in a big market like Brisbane, pulling numbers similar to one of the smallest regional markets, and the regional market with the most competition to boot, would be a massive failure, and a massive under achievement for the sport as a whole.

It'd be like if there was only one club in Sydney, a big club that represents the city and eastern suburbs, and choosing the second club to be specific disparate council area, like e.g. Manly Warringah, instead of one that represents all of Western Sydney.

Fibros vs silvertails was north beaches vs western suburbs - you said as much in your post. Logan or Ipswich vs Brisbane city would have same dynamic.
Tigers from Balmain now boast more members from camobelltown region than any club & that's after taking area for granted & playing few matches. Tigers brand didn't put off potential new fans in south west.
Give us an alternative to the bombers as 2nd team - I can't picture it. Team playing out of Suncorp for all of Brisbane - where's the difference?

 

[The Great Dane]

North Qld rivalry with Brisbane exists outside of football - talk of creating separate state. Definitely geographical.

That rivalry outside of footy isn't really NQ vs Brisbane, it's NQ vs the Queensland government, and it's not built on geography either.

The "rivalry" (really it's just anger) steams from NQ feeling that the politicians in SEQ take all their taxpayers money and then reinvest it into SEQ while leaving NQ's infrastructure rot, so it really hasn't got anything to do with geography outside of the fact that NQ is the region that feels they are being given a dud deal and want more self determination for themselves.

So if you're going argue that it's a rivalry, then it's a rivalry built on revolutionary politics, and not on we're from the north and you are from the south.

 

[ReddFelon]

Really hope Vlandys gets a bit of the Christopher Reeve treatment from one of his horses.

 

[The Great Dane]

Fibros vs silvertails was north beaches vs western suburbs - you said as much in your post.

The basis of the Fibros vs Silvertails rivalry could have happened between any number of geographical locations, because it wasn't about the locations themselves, it was about the class of the people that came from those locations.

It's also in the name, Poor people that live in Fibros vs Silvertails (i.e. rich people), seriously just google what the words fibro and silvertail means, or you could look up anybody that was there talking about it.

I honestly don't know what to tell you, you are just simply wrong.

Here's a good article on the Fibros and the Silvertails.

 

[BuffaloRules]

After investing over $10million in the NRL in the last 4 years, and being willing to cop flak from a staunch AFL community here in the process, how do you think the WA govt is feeling about his comments today?

What’s the WA Govt offering in terms of a new Perth NRL team? Maybe some long term sponsorship money or money for a Center of excellence or something?

They spent that $10 Mil on encouraging Eastern State fans to fly over there and fill up hotel rooms... I don’t think it was an “investment in RL”..

Also what “flak” were they copping from the staunch AFL fans about it?

Maybe these people are the “insular” ones..