Stalled and stagnant Sydney clubs

[Colk]

Christchurch, without a doubt.

If the NRL want a team to help fill that 6pm AET Friday slot (easing the pressure on Sydney clubs who hate hosting it), then a modern, covered, rectangular stadium means crowd comfort on cold NZ winter nights, and the prospect of great playing conditions & entertaining footy for those TV audiences.

Add to that Christchurch has a successful sporting culture, and Auckland v Christchurch is the biggest sporting rivalry in NZ, then it's a slam dunk.

Wellington perhaps makes sense as the 3rd NZ NRL team - if that eventuates, but NOT the 2nd one.

And I say that as a proud Wellingtonian.
(May any fellow Welly folks here forgive me!)

On the actual areas themselves are they particularly growing in terms of the population. What about corporate support which is probably the only concern with a second NZ side?

Also whenever they do put in another side, let’s hope that the new side and the Warriors really push hard at RU; maybe even nab some reputable names

 

[Colk]

I got talking to a Reds board member from that period. he said there was massive division in the reds board about which way to go. The thing that actually caused the problems for the Reds was the late introduction of reserve grade. They felt they could cover the costs of travel for the main grade and U18's but adding a third side was financially crippling. News got them over the line by offering a massive Sunday Times sponsorship deal that Cummins with his Cash Convertor sponsorship couldn't match and that finally got the board to agree, though half of them quit in disagreement the same week.
It destroyed the game here, we went from 10k registered players to less than 1k in space of 5 years. Taken us 25 years to get something like where we was back then.

There was a radio interview with the original chairman Puddy (forget his first name) who pretty much said the same thing. They hadn’t budgeted for RG and U18’s as well as the flights and accomodation for the Sydney sides. Essentially the conditions of the licence kept changing.

In hindsight, it was obviously the wrong call but considering how they were treated by the ARL at the time, I can totally understand why they went to SL

 

[Wb1234]

Regardless of where the idea of Superleague originated, the Reds, Cowboys & Warriors wouldn't have joined it if they didn't have concerns/greviences of their own.

Yes, the Broncos & News Ltd appealed to their sense of unfairness.. but if the ARL had taken action to allay that then the idea of a rebel competition would never have had any traction at those clubs.

If the broncos didn’t have the idea there would be no super league

if those clubs really did have such major grievances then they could’ve refused the license

that’s why there is no Perth club today. Because they chose Murdoch and he decided to move the club to Melbourne. Why nobody knows.

it would’ve been better had they stayed in Perth given the juniors there and greater interest in league than Melbourne

the clubs that joined super league did so purely out of their own selfishness.

 

[flippikat]

On the actual areas themselves are they particularly growing in terms of the population. What about corporate support which is probably the only concern with a second NZ side?

The key thing to keep in mind with the NZ sponsorship market is that we don't have "regional corporates" at the scale of Australia - our regions just don't have that "critical mass" of their own.. so any big sponsor will likely be a company that has nationwide reach, and not a local Christchurch or Wellington business - which makes it a reasonably even proposition either way.

I'd say we'd be looking at the big 4 industries (banks/financial, breweries, utility companies & car companies) as the big pull for NZ 2.

 

[siv]

Arthurson and Quayle forced all four expansion sides to cover travel and accommodation costs for the broke-arse Sydney clubs across first grade and reserve grade. It bankrupted the clubs and was incredibly discriminatory. Cowboys, Reds and Warriors jumped ship to Super League to get away from this discriminatory practice. Super League didn't want the Crushers so they were f**ked. The sooks who whinge about Super League should shut up and be grateful their Sydney clubs were never treated so poorly. If the Sydney-centric ARL didn't treat non-Sydney clubs with so much contempt then there wouldn't have been a Super League War.

I think fans of

- Balmain
- Wests
- St George
- Illawarra
- Norths
- Souths

Would disagree with you

 

[Colk]

The key thing to keep in mind with the NZ sponsorship market is that we don't have "regional corporates" at the scale of Australia - our regions just don't have that "critical mass" of their own.. so any big sponsor will likely be a company that has nationwide reach, and not a local Christchurch or Wellington business - which makes it a reasonably even proposition either way.

I'd say we'd be looking at the big 4 industries (banks/financial, breweries, utility companies & car companies) as the big pull for NZ 2.

If you can get the banks/financial industry that would be a good start.

Cheers Flippikat for the information. It is good to learn about the NZ proposal from an actual Kiwi in the know. I’ll have to shout you a beer when I go across the ditch

 

[Wb1234]

I think fans of

- Balmain
- Wests
- St George
- Illawarra
- Norths
- Souths

Would disagree with you

Plus crushers
Gold Coast (chargers?)

the arl really should’ve waited another year. After the 97 grand final super league was dead. Then the arl wouldve retained 100 percent of the game and then only allowed back the clubs from super league it wanted.

and we wouldn’t have had Murdoch controlling the game for 20 years. The least the arl could’ve done was cancel the broncos license and admit two brl teams instead

 

[siv]

Packer for free when he acquired the FTA rights in the early 90s.

And what year was the deal signed and for how long?

Think if when you bought your Pay-TV service

You do realise that the original Pay-TV proposal in the early 90s was put forward by the PMT consortium of Telstra - Murdoch and Packer

It was the ACCC in 1993 who forced Packer out of PMT

Now ask yourself who todays owns Foxtel - Telstra 50% Murdoch 25% and Packer 25%

 

[Colk]

I think fans of

- Balmain
- Wests
- St George
- Illawarra
- Norths
- Souths

Would disagree with you

They may disagree but most of those supporters would be wrong. Balmain and Wests were decrepit by that stage. So were Souths. St George weren’t negatively affected by their ‘merger’ with Illawarra. Norths were the ones who got shafted.

As soon as you brought in Brisbane and a few others and attempted a national competition, the future of a lot of Sydney/NSW clubs were always going to be in question - they just didn’t have the financial and corporate base to compete

 

[siv]

If NZ2 goes ahead

I wouldnt be surprised to see it based in Auckland

 

[Wb1234]

And what year was the deal signed and for how long?

You do realise that the original Pay-TV proposal in the early 90s was put forward by the PMT consortium of Telstra - Murdoch and Packer

It was the ACCC in 1993 who forced Packer out of PMT

Now ask yourself who todays owns Foxtel - Telstra 50% Murdoch 25% and Packer 25%

I think packer sold out five years ago and it’s mostly owned by news ltd now

 

[Wb1234]

They may disagree but most of those supporters would be wrong. Balmain and Wests were decrepit by that stage. So were Souths. St George weren’t negatively affected by their ‘merger’ with Illawarra. Norths were the ones who got shafted.

As soon as you brought in Brisbane and a few others and attempted a national competition, the future of a lot of Sydney/NSW clubs were always going to be in question - they just didn’t have the financial and corporate base to compete

Hahhaa

so the most successful rugby league club in Australia kicked out. The one whose first grand final win since the 70s is the most watched rugby league game here ever. The club that has 30k members, and has attracted billionaire owners worth 40 billion ?

poor Illawarra who got shafted out of a team and who now can easily support their own team.

They may disagree but most of those supporters would be wrong. Balmain and Wests were decrepit by that stage. So were Souths. St George weren’t negatively affected by their ‘merger’ with Illawarra. Norths were the ones who got shafted.

As soon as you brought in Brisbane and a few others and attempted a national competition, the future of a lot of Sydney/NSW clubs were always going to be in question - they just didn’t have the financial and corporate base to compete

Brisbane tried to set up their own comp. It failed miserably. Then by coming back with the arl clubs they lost one third of their fans who never returned.

just because they didn’t want to share Brisbane with the crushers.

it was the arl who set up a national competition. It was Brisbane which destroyed it.

 

[Colk]

Hahhaa

so the most successful rugby league club in Australia kicked out. The one whose first grand final win since the 70s is the most watched rugby league game here ever. The club that has 30k members, and has attracted billionaire owners worth 40 billion ?

poor Illawarra who got shafted out of a team and who now can easily support their own team.

Brisbane tried to set up their own comp. It failed miserably. Then by coming back with the arl clubs they lost one third of their fans who never returned.

just because they didn’t want to share Brisbane with the crushers.

it was the arl who set up a national competition. It was Brisbane which destroyed it.

Don’t confuse the present with the past.

They were incredibly financially poor at the time and their attendances were absolutely minuscule. They weren’t able to compete at the time, so don’t rewrite history. Now good on them for turning around their fortunes, but it was a millionaire actor and his mates who have given them a second chance. You can’t bank on such a turnaround very often.

Illawarra may be able to now (that is still very questionable considering they are not a full time team based in Wollongong) but that doesn’t mean they were able to at that time. In 10, 15 or 20 years with the growth in population coming from migration from Sydney, then St George might be based there permanently.

ARL may have expanded to a national competition but they did it too quickly and the expansionist sides weren’t given anywhere near enough support

 

[siv]

Agree in 1995 the ARL moved to fast to 4 teams

SL War triggered that

Should have only been 2 teams

 

[flippikat]

I think fans of

- Balmain
- Wests
- St George
- Illawarra
- Norths
- Souths

Would disagree with you

Hmm..

- Balmain
- Wests
- St George
- Illawarra

All have current representation in the NRL.

Yes it's via joint ventures, and the folk of Woolongong can justifiably feel peeved that they don't get a full schedule of home games anymore, and the shotgun, unco-ordinated nature of the process was a shambles, leaving clubs straddling illogical districts.. BUT they all have some degree of representation in the top flight to this day.

- Souths
Excluded - arguably unfairly - but fought back & still exist as a top tier club.

- Norths
Now, this *really* was unfair, almost on the level of Reds & Rams. They proactively jumped before they were pushed, seeing their future as a regional club based in Gosford and were cruelled by the double whammy of stadium delays & the Superleague war - and no special consideration to that was given by the NRL. Now the fans on the North Shore aren't officially represented (although I suspect the youth may have found other clubs to follow), and the Central Coast host far fewer games than they could have if the move had been backed properly by the NRL.

 

[Wb1234]

Agree in 1995 the ARL moved to fast to 4 teams

SL War triggered that

Should have only been 2 teams

They actually had more bids too like Melbourne and Adelaide which they told to come back in a few years

imagine if that had been allowed to happen.

In hindsight the biggest mistake was not bringing into two Brisbane sides at once but they wanted a strong Brisbane team

 

[Ozzi_78]

The Roosters are investing in a growing footprint on the central coast. I suspect they are being held back from doing much on the North shore by the Bears and Seaeagles who understandably in the current set up feel its their turf.
There is little sign that Cronulla are growing anything other than a bit better bank balance and a take up by Jnrs of the game in the region. Their stadium is capped at 12k and they cant even get close to that this season despite putting a winning team and good coach together and being away from home for 2 years. You'd think Sharks fans would be falling over themselves to go along to Shark park!
Dragons need to go 9 & 3, gong and SFS. finish off WIN stadium and get their big latent fanbase engaged. Dragons were a classic club who relied on their pokies and when that started to dry up they were in trouble. Sharks take note.

Literally Sold out 2 home games that were in good time slots vs parra and tigers, knights at 6 pm Friday and manly 8pm Thursday in pissing rain were 9K as you’d expect. The 12K cap is temporary While we continue to secure our long term future.

Enough with the mothering comments about the sharks taking note… I think they have you covered red.

 

[flippikat]

They actually had more bids too like Melbourne and Adelaide which they told to come back in a few years

imagine if that had been allowed to happen.

In hindsight the biggest mistake was not bringing into two Brisbane sides at once but they wanted a strong Brisbane team

I think in hindsight there was a compelling argument for adding two Brisbane teams along with Newcastle in 1988.

Say, one based north of the river & another based south of the river.

There's your 16 team competition in 1988.

Then you'd have North Queensland, Auckland, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide on the table as future expansion targets - that's 5 locations.. so 1 relocation & 4 expansions would have done it.

Another relocation if you want NZ 2 as well.

 

[Wb1234]

I think in hindsight there was a compelling argument for adding two Brisbane teams along with Newcastle in 1988.

Say, one based north of the river & another based south of the river.

There's your 16 team competition in 1988.

Then you'd have North Queensland, Auckland, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide on the table as future expansion targets - that's 5 locations.. so 1 relocation & 4 expansions would have done it.

Another relocation if you want NZ 2 as well.

If not for the super league was the arl wouldve added Melbourne and Adelaide and let natural attrition take care of a few Sydney clubs if need be

 

[flippikat]

If not for the super league was the arl wouldve added Melbourne and Adelaide and let natural attrition take care of a few Sydney clubs if need be

Adding 2 Brisbane teams in 1988 could have been a shrewd move to lessen the chances of one becoming an all powerful, "too big for their boots" juggernaut. You know, divide & conquer and all that

Besides, it makes no sense having a Brisbane team lobbying for exclusivity, if there was never exclusivity to begin with.....