What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Southern Orcas (NZ2)

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
47,623
Would it though? I mean Melbourne has done a lot more for producing SOO players than Titans for example. 85% of the Kiwi squad dont play for the warriors. Its not necessarily where the club is based but where it draws its jnrs from, and then how good it is at turning them into NRL stars.
 

MugaB

Bench
Messages
4,570
Would it though? I mean Melbourne has done a lot more for producing SOO players than Titans for example. 85% of the Kiwi squad dont play for the warriors. Its not necessarily where the club is based but where it draws its jnrs from, and then how good it is at turning them into NRL stars.
I was merely stating out of the NSWRL expansion, which club would they have picked if it was only one, like it is now? Or 2 like it will be if the rumours of NZ2 are true.

I suggest maybe crushers as of the governing body was going one by one, they'd pick the safer region... i know it wasn't and arthurson and quayle had huge balls jumping into expansion x4, (Perth, NZ & nth&sth Qlds)

If the path of expansion stayed true, but one by one, without SLwar/mergersetc,
we'd never had gotten into Melbourne yet,
Think about? One by one... no SL means no rams/mariners/storm.
Gold Coast Chargers still exist, so no titans, but we'd get Cowboys in 2007 instead, and 2023 is Perth, with the next one soon to be in NZ as the Warriors... amazing theory.... f**k load of sydney teams tho... it would have killed grot dead
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,991
I was merely stating out of the NSWRL expansion, which club would they have picked if it was only one, like it is now? Or 2 like it will be if the rumours of NZ2 are true.

I suggest maybe crushers as of the governing body was going one by one, they'd pick the safer region... i know it wasn't and arthurson and quayle had huge balls jumping into expansion x4, (Perth, NZ & nth&sth Qlds)

If the path of expansion stayed true, but one by one, without SLwar/mergersetc,
we'd never had gotten into Melbourne yet,
Think about? One by one... no SL means no rams/mariners/storm.
Gold Coast Chargers still exist, so no titans, but we'd get Cowboys in 2007 instead, and 2023 is Perth, with the next one soon to be in NZ as the Warriors... amazing theory.... f**k load of sydney teams tho... it would have killed grot dead
I've often thought about where we'd be with no SL war...

1995 - expansion to include Crushers, Reds, Warriors and Cowboys

1996 - 2000 would have likely seen some trouble as the expansion wasn't sustainable and there may well have been some rationalisation. For arguments sake, let's say that Illawarra couldn't stand on their own and folded (with St George taking over the area and renaming themselves the St George Illawarra Dragons), North Sydney went broke and Balmain went broke. This would leave us with 17 clubs, four QLD teams, one NZ team, Newcastle, nine Sydney clubs, Canberra and Perth.

2012 would have been the next expansion because we wouldn't have to react to the AFL's Gold Coast club because we'd already have had one there since 1988. 2012 ushered big TV money into sport in Australia and the ARL would be able to look at Melbourne as team 18.

2017 brings us to the start of our next and even bigger TV contract which would give the NRL a chance to announce Adelaide and NZ2 with staggered entry for 2018 and 2020 respectively. COVID would ultimately push the NZ2 entry back to 2023 (or maybe in this alternate universe without a SL war, there would never be COVD 🤔)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TGG

flippikat

Bench
Messages
3,053
I've often thought about where we'd be with no SL war...

1995 - expansion to include Crushers, Reds, Warriors and Cowboys

1996 - 2000 would have likely seen some trouble as the expansion wasn't sustainable and there may well have been some rationalisation. For arguments sake, let's say that Illawarra couldn't stand on their own and folded (with St George taking over the area and renaming themselves the St George Illawarra Dragons), North Sydney went broke and Balmain went broke. This would leave us with 17 clubs, four QLD teams, one NZ team, Newcastle, nine Sydney clubs, Canberra and Perth.

2012 would have been the next expansion because we wouldn't have to react to the AFL's Gold Coast club because we'd already have had one there since 1988. 2012 ushered big TV money into sport in Australia and the ARL would be able to look at Melbourne as team 18.

2017 brings us to the start of our next and even bigger TV contract which would give the NRL a chance to announce Adelaide and NZ2 with staggered entry for 2018 and 2020 respectively. COVID would ultimately push the NZ2 entry back to 2023 (or maybe in this alternate universe without a SL war, there would never be COVD 🤔)
I think one thing you're overlooking is broadcasting. Once the ARL competition was formed with 20 teams, surely broadcasting deals would be in place that depend on 10 games per weekend.

If a team goes broke & has to drop out, then the ARL could be in breach of the broadcasting contract(s) if they don't field 10 games per weekend - which necessitates a bailout/relocation OR a replacement club if the NRL want to avoid a messy mid-contract renegotiation with the broadcaster(s).

In short, if Balmain fall over.. hello Melbourne Tigers. If Norths go broke.. hello Central Coast Stingrays. (Depending on what replacement is deemed desirable by the ARL)

I can't see them leaving it a decade or more to go back to 20 teams in this scenario.
 

MugaB

Bench
Messages
4,570
I think one thing you're overlooking is broadcasting. Once the ARL competition was formed with 20 teams, surely broadcasting deals would be in place that depend on 10 games per weekend.

If a team goes broke & has to drop out, then the ARL could be in breach of the broadcasting contract(s) if they don't field 10 games per weekend - which necessitates a bailout/relocation OR a replacement club if the NRL want to avoid a messy mid-contract renegotiation with the broadcaster(s).

In short, if Balmain fall over.. hello Melbourne Tigers. If Norths go broke.. hello Central Coast Stingrays. (Depending on what replacement is deemed desirable by the ARL)

I can't see them leaving it a decade or more to go back to 20 teams in this scenario.
More likely bears would be on the central coast by then, they were forced to merge due to not only money issues all tied into the stadium unfinished by the time the dumb "criteria" forced clubs to do the unthinkable, had it been planned better certian clubs would be suited better with others, rather than what ended up happening
 
Messages
3,991
I think one thing you're overlooking is broadcasting. Once the ARL competition was formed with 20 teams, surely broadcasting deals would be in place that depend on 10 games per weekend.

If a team goes broke & has to drop out, then the ARL could be in breach of the broadcasting contract(s) if they don't field 10 games per weekend - which necessitates a bailout/relocation OR a replacement club if the NRL want to avoid a messy mid-contract renegotiation with the broadcaster(s).

In short, if Balmain fall over.. hello Melbourne Tigers. If Norths go broke.. hello Central Coast Stingrays. (Depending on what replacement is deemed desirable by the ARL)

I can't see them leaving it a decade or more to go back to 20 teams in this scenario.
Yeah that's a fair call actually
 

siv

First Grade
Messages
5,427
I've often thought about where we'd be with no SL war...

1995 - expansion to include Crushers, Reds, Warriors and Cowboys

1996 - 2000 would have likely seen some trouble as the expansion wasn't sustainable and there may well have been some rationalisation. For arguments sake, let's say that Illawarra couldn't stand on their own and folded (with St George taking over the area and renaming themselves the St George Illawarra Dragons), North Sydney went broke and Balmain went broke. This would leave us with 17 clubs, four QLD teams, one NZ team, Newcastle, nine Sydney clubs, Canberra and Perth.

2012 would have been the next expansion because we wouldn't have to react to the AFL's Gold Coast club because we'd already have had one there since 1988. 2012 ushered big TV money into sport in Australia and the ARL would be able to look at Melbourne as team 18.

2017 brings us to the start of our next and even bigger TV contract which would give the NRL a chance to announce Adelaide and NZ2 with staggered entry for 2018 and 2020 respectively. COVID would ultimately push the NZ2 entry back to 2023 (or maybe in this alternate universe without a SL war, there would never be COVD 🤔)
Yes there are a lot if what ifs during the expansion period

But the main one for me is actually the decision by Newcastle to not join in 1982

If they joined in 1982 as planned then things may have played out as follows

1983 Newtown goes bust

1988 Brisbane join 14 teams

1995 Auckland and Nth Qld join 16 teams

1996 Cronulla goes bust Canberra join

1999 Bears on CC

2007 Gold Coast & Melbourne 18 teams

Rather than Balmain going broke we would have seen the East Coast Tigers in Brisbane

No NRL cull would have changed a few things Easts not being able to poach everyone, and what would have become of St George & Illawarra
 

Dark Corner

Juniors
Messages
448
Yes there are a lot if what ifs during the expansion period

But the main one for me is actually the decision by Newcastle to not join in 1982

If they joined in 1982 as planned then things may have played out as follows

1983 Newtown goes bust

1988 Brisbane join 14 teams

1995 Auckland and Nth Qld join 16 teams

1996 Cronulla goes bust Canberra join

1999 Bears on CC

2007 Gold Coast & Melbourne 18 teams

Rather than Balmain going broke we would have seen the East Coast Tigers in Brisbane

No NRL cull would have changed a few things Easts not being able to poach everyone, and what would have become of St George & Illawarra
Said it before but Penrith and Cronulla should never have been admitted in the first place but it pisses me off that you have a nice stadium on the Central Coast and they don't have a team yet on Eastern Suburbs you have Roosters and South and yet Souths play out ANZ...its madness as Souths should have the SFS and that area to themselves and Roosters should f**k off to CC and maybe they get decent crowds.
 

flippikat

Bench
Messages
3,053
Said it before but Penrith and Cronulla should never have been admitted in the first place but it pisses me off that you have a nice stadium on the Central Coast and they don't have a team yet on Eastern Suburbs you have Roosters and South and yet Souths play out ANZ...its madness as Souths should have the SFS and that area to themselves and Roosters should f**k off to CC and maybe they get decent crowds.
East Coast Roosters & Souths taking the Centre-East of Sydney really would solve part of the puzzle, for sure.

Still leaves a bit of a logjam in the west, and the enclave of Sharks territory in the south - but a good start.
 

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
47,623
East Coast Roosters & Souths taking the Centre-East of Sydney really would solve part of the puzzle, for sure.

Still leaves a bit of a logjam in the west, and the enclave of Sharks territory in the south - but a good start.
Roosters arent swapping the CBD and rich eastern suburbs for Gosford lol Id be surprised if they dont have some of the biggest sponsorships and corporate box sales in the NRL.
 

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
47,623
I've often thought about where we'd be with no SL war...
I often wonder where RL could be now if post the SL war they had been a bit more ambitious and visionary! If in '98 they'd had kept the Rams, Reds and Crushers. Had supported the Bears move to gosford. Had put a massive carrot (or threat of being relegated) on the table for a Sydney cub to move to Melbourne and kept to a 18 team comp. moving forward. Be interesting who could have survived the lean financial years of 98-2012 before the big TV money started kicking in. Would have still required some culling of Sydney or mergers but we would not be where we are 25 years later with still no clubs in tow of our biggest cities and only just getting a second club in brisbane!
 
Messages
3,991
I often wonder where RL could be now if post the SL war they had been a bit more ambitious and visionary! If in '98 they'd had kept the Rams, Reds and Crushers. Had supported the Bears move to gosford. Had put a massive carrot (or threat of being relegated) on the table for a Sydney cub to move to Melbourne and kept to a 18 team comp. moving forward. Be interesting who could have survived the lean financial years of 98-2012 before the big TV money started kicking in. Would have still required some culling of Sydney or mergers but we would not be where we are 25 years later with still no clubs in tow of our biggest cities and only just getting a second club in brisbane!
The lean years are the trouble aren't they. Do you think we would arrive at 2012 with Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne all in tact considering the game didn't have the funds to sink into them? If all three managed to scrape through we'd be in a good position though.
 

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
47,623
The lean years are the trouble aren't they. Do you think we would arrive at 2012 with Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne all in tact considering the game didn't have the funds to sink into them? If all three managed to scrape through we'd be in a good position though.
Its hard to say, I guess if the "peace' deal had been a bit better weighted then quite possibly. ie News Ltd got $8mill a year from NRL funds after the war. If that $8mill had been used across the three expansion clubs then it would have probably been enough to see them survive. Puddy seems quite adamant that Reds were in a much healthier position than they are given credit for and it was really only the travel problem and the inflation of SL salaries that had caused the so called debt. Perth Oval was redeveloped into a rectangular ground in 2004 so that would have definitely helped the Reds sustainability.

Adelaide hard to say but they started out ok.

Melbourne would have been a relocated Sydney club and should have got some assistance accordingly.
 

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
47,623
The teams in 1998


What we should have done:
1. Broncos
2. Crushers
3. Gold Coast
4. NQ

5. Auckland
6. Perth
7. Melbourne
8. Adelaide
9. Canberra

10. Newcastle
11. CC Bears
12. Illawara

Then strategically pick 6 Sydney clubs out of the 10 ,encouraging mergers that made sense.
 
Messages
3,991
The teams in 1998


What we should have done:
1. Broncos
2. Crushers
3. Gold Coast
4. NQ

5. Auckland
6. Perth
7. Melbourne
8. Adelaide
9. Canberra

10. Newcastle
11. CC Bears
12. Illawara

Then strategically pick 6 Sydney clubs out of the 10 ,encouraging mergers that made sense.
I like the plan with probably the exception of Illawarra. I could be wrong but wasn't it the case that the region just wasn't able to sustain a stand-alone team in the professional era at the end of the 90's?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vee

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
47,623
I like the plan with probably the exception of Illawarra. I could be wrong but wasn't it the case that the region just wasn't able to sustain a stand-alone team in the professional era at the end of the 90's?
Yeh it was probably too soon and might have required a merger with Sharks or Dragons I suppose. Or could have been one of those areas NRL invested in till it became sustainable. Just seems you'd have NSW tied up, Qlnd tied up, all major Australian metro cities tied up and NZ started. That would have been the ideal footprint and by now we could be talking about teams 19 and 20 which might be NZ2, Brisbane3, heck even PNG might be viable investment given we'd have tied up Australia a long time ago. Getting Sydney 10 to 6 would have been a difficult journey but ultimately a necessary one and back then probably easier than it would be today.

Also the NRl could have imposed a max spend limit on clubs that made it sustainable for everyone. End of day NRL clubs only have three main expenses: Players, football staff, operational running costs. Bringing salary cap right down, imposing football cap would have seen clubs hopefully survive until the money started flowing into the game 15 years later. Salary cap in 1998 was $3.25mill which seems high considering club grants were under $2mill and the difference in game and club revenue in '98 compared to now.

Imagine if just a fraction of the $560mill News ltd spent and $122mill Packer spent on the war had instead gone into growing the game, what a different place RL would be in Australia right now!
 
Last edited:

siv

First Grade
Messages
5,427
What we should have done:
1. Broncos
2. Crushers
3. Gold Coast
4. NQ

5. Auckland
6. Perth
7. Melbourne
8. Adelaide
9. Canberra

Or add NZ 2, Ipswich and Redcliffe and run a seperate comp, GF in Brisbane

Then have a Super Bowl v NSW Premiers
 
Messages
3,991
Yeh it was probably too soon and might have required a merger with Sharks or Dragons I suppose. Or could have been one of those areas NRL invested in till it became sustainable. Just seems you'd have NSW tied up, Qlnd tied up, all major Australian metro cities tied up and NZ started. That would have been the ideal footprint and by now we could be talking about teams 19 and 20 which might be NZ2, Brisbane3, heck even PNG might be viable investment given we'd have tied up Australia a long time ago. Getting Sydney 10 to 6 would have been a difficult journey but ultimately a necessary one and back then probably easier than it would be today.

Also the NRl could have imposed a max spend limit on clubs that made it sustainable for everyone. End of day NRL clubs only have three main expenses: Players, football staff, operational running costs. Bringing salary cap right down, imposing football cap would have seen clubs hopefully survive until the money started flowing into the game 15 years later. Salary cap in 1998 was $3.25mill which seems high considering club grants were under $2mill and the difference in game and club revenue in '98 compared to now.

Imagine if just a fraction of the $560mill News ltd spent and $122mill Packer spent on the war had instead gone into growing the game, what a different place RL would be in Australia right now!
Tackling 10 to 6 would have seen some pain but that was the time to do it if ever.

The three easy calls would have been to let the Bears, Balmain and Illawarra go under. The fourth one (which was supposed to be Souths) would have been the tough call. Do you sit and wait for one more club to go bust? It would have happened, I think it was St George & Cronulla not long ago wasn't it? It would be bitter pill for the fans of that club to swallow though whilst the NRL bails out Newcastle and the Gold Coast but they are markets with only one team so it had to be done.
 

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
47,623
Yep, no pain no gain! Should have said to the ten.
Three options on the table. 1 move to melbourne 2 merge or 3 go into a competitive bid process and if you arent chosen drop to NSW cup. Lets say one moved to Melbourne, that's 9 left. three mergers and you have your six clubs.

the fault lay in sticking with the 14 team goal and dropping 3 metro teams in the rationalizing. Very dumb, very rugby league.
 
Top