Sydney relocations

[Wilson1]

We have a saturation of Sydney clubs because it was once called the NSWRL, then the ARL and now the NRL. The NRL need to stop helping these clubs out of their financial problems again and again and again. Let them die a natural death. These clubs had their hands out before the new television deal was inked and as I said at the time "they will have their hands out long after it expires". Its like when the Central Coast bid of 2005 was overlooked for the newest Gold Coast model put forward after the previous failures of the Giants, the Seagulls and the Chargers. People talk about Perth but as I have said again and again and again, where are their juniors, its an AFL state. People are saying on one hand that their isn't enough quality playing talent and then they want to start up in an AFL heartland, yeah good one, absolutely ridiculous.

That's what expansion is. You pick an area that isn't big on rugby league, give them a team, do work at the grass roots and then you have more players. Putting a team on the Central Coast isn't going to boost player numbers.

I don't think any teams should be forcibly relocated. If any cannot survive, they should be removed from the competition. If you get rid of say Cronulla then all Cronulla's fans aren't going to start supporting St George. You just lose a whole bunch of people from the game.

 

[Wilson1]

what the NRL should do is encourage the dragons and tigers to give up sydney and play in their regional bases

they should offer up 1 million a year for each club to play 8 of their home games in wollongong and campbelltown respectively, with their big derby games still in sydney.

cronulla look like their development will be ok so give them time they can be a powerhouse

the rest are all fine.

That is messed up. We went into the merge as St George Illawarra. Why would we give half the club up? Also, do you realise what sort of crowds the Steelers used to get?

 

[Beefy]

My mail is this, franchise for Perth and one for Qld somewhere around Gladstone !

 

[georgesnmith]

That is messed up. We went into the merge as St George Illawarra. Why would we give half the club up? Also, do you realise what sort of crowds the Steelers used to get?

having done the trip down to wollongong many times its not an issue

at a guess id say 5000 saints fans regularly make the trip for gong games, and im still saying play 4 games in sydney for those who wont travel, preferably at anz

the ARLC could tie more games in wollgong and campbelltown to further ground upgrades

 

[RL The greatest game]

It appears from this article that lack of player talent is the main reason why the commission are holding back on plans to expand.
If we could take 2 NRL clubs out of Sydney and relocate one to Perth and another to Qld that might work. The problem is which 2 NRL clubs should be relocated from Sydney. Perhaps as well its time to raid the European Super League and take about 10 players from there.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...eague-identities/story-fni3fbgz-1226862253588

 

[oikee]

Relocate, or better still, making the Sydney clubs bigger.
We all know that at least 2 Sydney clubs will have to be swallowed up by other clubs, so those clubs become stronger in the process.
Less Sydney clubs means a stronger comp, because the clubs that are gone help the code grow into areas where millions of fans are waiting for a new team, or any team in most cases. (brisbane,perth, wellington)

It is a business now, and like in business we need to grow with the times.
The game of rugby league is too tribal, and the tribes are drifting as we speak. we need to consolidate and regrow that tribal nature, and it is not just by putting dots or lines on a map. It starts with proper stadiums so we can build atmosphere, memberships, better marketing, the whole box and dice.

There are many things involved, and every time we have a blog on one issue, you start another blog for another issue and bloggers end up making 10 replies to what the problem's really are, and then we get told off for going off subject.
The subject covers a whole range of issues.
Same as you cant just relocate any team without putting in place a whole raft of plans.

The easiest thing to do right now is for the Sharks and Tigers to merge.
That is the easiest problem league ever had at solving, and they become the Tiger Sharks.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Sorry, Wests Tigers have done their bit for Sydney rationalisation.

They have immunity from any further merging.

Won it during the NRL Survivor series from 1999..

 

[BuffaloRules]

It appears from this article that lack of player talent is the main reason why the commission are holding back on plans to expand.
If we could take 2 NRL clubs out of Sydney and relocate one to Perth and another to Qld that might work. The problem is which 2 NRL clubs should be relocated from Sydney. ]

Which 2 indeed?

I don't think there are going to be any volunteers.

 

[BuffaloRules]

They wouldn't remove any Sydney clubs after going on such a big membership drive.
Why would you encourage people to become members of a club that wont be there/ will be in NSW cup in 5 years? That sort of move would piss a lot of people off.

Sensible point.

I guess that's why everyone else has ignored it.

 

[The Great Dane]

Which 2 indeed?

I don't think there are going to be any volunteers.

I've thought about this question for a while and with the information that I have at my disposal have decided that there're pros and cons for every team, I decided to look for two smaller clubs which are restricted in growth and aren't strategically necessary to the NRL, and by my reckoning the two best options would be the Sharks and the Roosters.

Both are surrounded on all sides without a great deal of room to grow locally, the Sharks struggle to pay for themselves and god knows what will happen to Easts once Uncle Nick passes on, both their junior systems could be easily picked up by other clubs, both their areas could easily be covered by other clubs and neither have a huge supporters base.

In a perfect world where everything worked out for the best you'd relocate the Sharks to Adelaide, while still playing a handful of games at Shark Park, and merge the Roosters with the Rabbits.Unfortunately the world isn't perfect.

 

[The Great Dane]

I agree totally. The league has to be bias here and only prop teams up that deserve propping up. In other words, if they are of strategical benefit to the game as a whole? If not cut them loose. I.E. Cronulla & Roosters don't have a leg to stand on.

These are pretty much my opinions on the matter (coincidentally even down to the teams that I'd remove), though I would add that the NRL should hold this attitude to all teams and not just Sydney based clubs.

 

[reanimate]

I've thought about this question for a while and with the information that I have at my disposal have decided that there're pros and cons for every team, I decided to look for two smaller clubs which are restricted in growth and aren't strategically necessary to the NRL, and by my reckoning the two best options would be the Sharks and the Roosters.

Both are surrounded on all sides without a great deal of room to grow locally, the Sharks struggle to pay for themselves and god knows what will happen to Easts once Uncle Nick passes on, both their junior systems could be easily picked up by other clubs, both their areas could easily be covered by other clubs and neither have a huge supporters base.

In a perfect world where everything worked out for the best you'd relocate the Sharks to Adelaide, while still playing a handful of games at Shark Park, and merge the Roosters with the Rabbits.Unfortunately the world isn't perfect.

I think if you were going to do something with the Roosters and Sharks (that isn't the Sharks being relocated), you could fold the Sharks into the Roosters- I.e. not a merger, but just a straight up Roosters takeover of the area, with maybe the Roosters' blue being slightly lightened to acknowledge the area. That way you could preserve the heritage aspect of the Roosters brand and have a club active in the area. I think relocating the Sharks is a better option though. As for Easts, I think a good move there would be to give the Roosters back their old boundaries- i.e. give them back Maroubra, Randwick etc and let the ensuing controversy and battle with Souths for the support of the youth there generate huge amounts of publicity for the club and the code.

Btw, anyone calling for the culling of Manly is insane, the NRL needs more presence and to do more work north of the Bridge, not cull the only club between the Bridge and Newcastle. The NRL needs to make a decision on the Bears- either kill them off for good and let Manly/another club have the North Shore, or bring them in. Given that the topic's about how overcrowded the Sydney market is, it's pretty easy to see that letting a tenth club dip into the Sydney market's a dumb idea though.

 

[taipan]

Relocate, or better still, making the Sydney clubs bigger.
We all know that at least 2 Sydney clubs will have to be swallowed up by other clubs, so those clubs become stronger in the process.
Less Sydney clubs means a stronger comp, because the clubs that are gone help the code grow into areas where millions of fans are waiting for a new team, or any team in most cases. (brisbane,perth, wellington)

It is a business now, and like in business we need to grow with the times.
The game of rugby league is too tribal, and the tribes are drifting as we speak. we need to consolidate and regrow that tribal nature, and it is not just by putting dots or lines on a map. It starts with proper stadiums so we can build atmosphere, memberships, better marketing, the whole box and dice.

There are many things involved, and every time we have a blog on one issue, you start another blog for another issue and bloggers end up making 10 replies to what the problem's really are, and then we get told off for going off subject.
The subject covers a whole range of issues.
Same as you cant just relocate any team without putting in place a whole raft of plans.

The easiest thing to do right now is for the Sharks and Tigers to merge.
That is the easiest problem league ever had at solving, and they become the Tiger Sharks.

Ive got a far better idea Oikee.merge the Titans with the Broncos',they might then fill the stadium.
And have the Cowboys merge with a new Central Qld side,covring the whole east coast.
About as sensible as your ideas.
The Tigers and sharks have developed a tribal nature over decades,teh qld sides are just beginning.
Learn from SL debacle,instead of being the constant arm chair relocation general.

 

[taipan]

I think if you were going to do something with the Roosters and Sharks (that isn't the Sharks being relocated), you could fold the Sharks into the Roosters- I.e. not a merger, but just a straight up Roosters takeover of the area, with maybe the Roosters' blue being slightly lightened to acknowledge the area. That way you could preserve the heritage aspect of the Roosters brand and have a club active in the area. I think relocating the Sharks is a better option though. As for Easts, I think a good move there would be to give the Roosters back their old boundaries- i.e. give them back Maroubra, Randwick etc and let the ensuing controversy and battle with Souths for the support of the youth there generate huge amounts of publicity for the club and the code.

Btw, anyone calling for the culling of Manly is insane, the NRL needs more presence and to do more work north of the Bridge, not cull the only club between the Bridge and Newcastle. The NRL needs to make a decision on the Bears- either kill them off for good and let Manly/another club have the North Shore, or bring them in. Given that the topic's about how overcrowded the Sydney market is, it's pretty easy to see that letting a tenth club dip into the Sydney market's a dumb idea though.

So the Sharks who are ready to dig the first sod of dirt on their new development which will net them $43m in a couple of years,plus ongoing retail from the retail development ,should be absorbed into the Roosters.:sarcasm:
Manly would kill to have that underpinning.
And that is allowing for an Asada issues that may or may not ccrop up.
I am not for culling or relocating any club.We are having problems with crowds ATM,and killing off or relocating clubs is going to make that problem even worse.
Most of the guys who want relocation are Qlders ,judging by the posters.

 

[oikee]

Ive got a far better idea Oikee.merge the Titans with the Broncos',they might then fill the stadium.
And have the Cowboys merge with a new Central Qld side,covering the whole east coast.
About as sensible as your ideas.
The Tigers and sharks have developed a tribal nature over decades,the qld sides are just beginning.
Learn from SL debacle,instead of being the constant arm chair relocation general.

That is a little sad dont you think.
The Queensland sides might not have that tribal nature at NRL level, it is hard to build a tribal anything when your only got one team in Brisbane.

Look, we have tribal at the second tier that we had to keep alive and grow. You know, the Q-cup.
Now lets see how we have done compared to the NRL.
We have teams in Cairns, Mackay, Sunshine Coast, Central Rockhampton, Tweed, Burleigh and introduced now a team from overseas, Papua.

Now, tell me again how the NRL has gone since superleague.

If you say anything other than backwards, you be wrong.

They have not even sorted the problems in Sydney.
And Newcastle is a basketcase again.
Every bet the NRL makes is the wrong bet, while the Queensland cup is thriving.
I think it would even be better to divide the NRL into two states again.
You go your way, and Queensland will do our own thing.
We can generate our own cash from our own TV deals. no worries.
I get sick of listening to yobs from Sydney, i see you sacked the strategy guy Shane Matiske, no wonder. The strategies this year so far have been diobolical.
A muppet could have planned the game better.

 

[The Great Dane]

Ive got a far better idea Oikee.merge the Titans with the Broncos',they might then fill the stadium.
And have the Cowboys merge with a new Central Qld side,covring the whole east coast.
About as sensible as your ideas.
The Tigers and sharks have developed a tribal nature over decades,teh qld sides are just beginning.
Learn from SL debacle,instead of being the constant arm chair relocation general.

The Queensland sides and the others outside of Sydney (except Newcastle maybe if the CC gets a team) will never build strong rivalries or that tribal nature like Sydney if things stay as they are for three reasons.

Firstly because every time a rivalry including a team from outside Sydney starts to form Nine does everything in it's power to kill it (except for Bris v Cows and Manly v Storm, the latter wasn't and isn't a real rivalry anyway ), for f##k knows what reasons if they're doing it intentionally at all.

Secondly because of the geographical distance between clubs outside of Sydney the areas that the clubs inhabit become all but completely under their control, so you don't get the same sort of environment like Sydney where opposition fans are literally living on top of each other.

Lastly because of the over saturation of Sydney clubs the natural rivals of the teams outside of Sydney cannot fit into the comp!

The first reason can't be fix by reshuffling the placement of clubs, but the other two can be fixed by expansion and relocation.

If our goal is to increase rivalry and tribalism outside of Sydney in the competition, then just look at this scenario for example.

If we removed two teams from Sydney and expanded the comp to fit two more in, we could theoretically add one team in Adelaide (they have a long standing rivalry with Melbourne), one in Brisbane (this ones obvious), one team in Wellington (they have a rivalry with Auckland and one could easily be nurtured with us here in Canberra) and lastly another team in Melbourne/Geelong/CQ/Cairns/CC/Bris3/SSC/a million other examples that theoretically could support NRL teams (once again they're all obvious).

Now that is not at all how I'd expand the comp or relocate teams, but for their to be more tribalism and rivalries outside of Sydney then the conditions need to be improved to make sure that it's in the game, but as it is there's not much we can do about it because once we expand to about 20-22 clubs we'll either need to go to a conference system or make room for clubs by removing others.

 

[reanimate]

So the Sharks who are ready to dig the first sod of dirt on their new development which will net them $43m in a couple of years,plus ongoing retail from the retail development ,should be absorbed into the Roosters.:sarcasm:
Manly would kill to have that underpinning.
And that is allowing for an Asada issues that may or may not ccrop up.
I am not for culling or relocating any club.We are having problems with crowds ATM,and killing off or relocating clubs is going to make that problem even worse.
Most of the guys who want relocation are Qlders ,judging by the posters.

That's great that the Sharks will have that going forward, but has that been the case in the past? The Sharks have been in some pretty perilous financial situations in the past and have had to come to the NRL cap-in-hand on more than one occasion and were pretty quick to grab Uncle Roops' cash when he came knocking. Who's to say something won't go wrong with the development or your future revenue? What will happen then? They'll be straight back on struggle street.

Yes, Manly would love to have that, but even if Manly were to end up in a worse state than the Sharks have been in before, they wouldn't be going anywhere- they're the only club in Sydney's North, a region with 1+ million people. Remove all the emotion surrounding Manly and how hated they are and it's pretty easy to see they're important to the NRL going forward. If the NRL has plans to reduce the number of teams in Sydney, then the Bears bid is dead in the water as they'll be another team eating into the Sydney market, existing NRL clubs will have their roles and territories expanded, i.e. Manly will likely end up with at least part of the North Shore (if not Manly, then possibly the Roosters instead) and whatever club gets punted/relocated/merged will have another team (or their merged entity) cover their former territory. Manly will, at the very least, be rock solid in their current location, or maybe covering more territory in the future- Cronulla doesn't have the luxury of having territory available to expand into, they're surrounded to the North and South by the Saints, the Tigers have Campbelltown and Souths and the Bulldogs have all the remaining areas to the North covered.

Firstly because every time a rivalry including a team from outside Sydney starts to form Nine does everything in it's power to kill it (except for Bris v Cows and Manly v Storm, the latter wasn't and isn't a real rivalry anyway ), for f##k knows what reasons if they're doing it intentionally at all.

How isn't Manly vs Storm a real rivalry? In terms of Sydney teams vs out-of-state teams, it's one of the stronger rivalries, the two teams always rip into each other, they generally draw pretty strong crowds at both Manly and Melbourne's home grounds and the players seem to regard it as a legit rivalry, eg check out Widdop's recent interview where he calls the Manly vs Melbourne games some of Melbourne's biggest.

 

[bobmar28]

These are pretty much my opinions on the matter (coincidentally even down to the teams that I'd remove), though I would add that the NRL should hold this attitude to all teams and not just Sydney based clubs.

There are places that need to have a team but there is no place that must have nine teams.

 

[God-King Dean]

Perth.

 

[taipan]

That is a little sad dont you think.
The Queensland sides might not have that tribal nature at NRL level, it is hard to build a tribal anything when your only got one team in Brisbane.

Look, we have tribal at the second tier that we had to keep alive and grow. You know, the Q-cup.
Now lets see how we have done compared to the NRL.
We have teams in Cairns, Mackay, Sunshine Coast, Central Rockhampton, Tweed, Burleigh and introduced now a team from overseas, Papua.

Now, tell me again how the NRL has gone since superleague.

If you say anything other than backwards, you be wrong.

They have not even sorted the problems in Sydney.
And Newcastle is a basketcase again.
Every bet the NRL makes is the wrong bet, while the Queensland cup is thriving.
I think it would even be better to divide the NRL into two states again.
You go your way, and Queensland will do our own thing.
We can generate our own cash from our own TV deals. no worries.
I get sick of listening to yobs from Sydney, i see you sacked the strategy guy Shane Matiske, no wonder. The strategies this year so far have been diobolical.
A muppet could have planned the game better.

If you believe Super league did not put the code back 10-20 years,you are deluded.

The game in 1995 was killing it ,even the Vic fumblers were looking over their shoulders,when the new teams Crushers/reds/Warriors and the Cowboys came in,then SL intervened.
Have a look at crowd drops during that period.have a look what happened when souths was given the flick,and Norths .All the result in one way or another from SL.And I supported SL,showing how dumb I was.
North Sydney has become practically a rl wasteland.I recall a match at NSOval Bears v Manly years ago there.

I have spelt out the Shark's current and future financials and suggest there will be a few clubs who would like to be in their positon within the next 3-4 years.Owning the ground,rental income for retail,new League's club with increased patronage,and no doubt post ASADA sponsorships.

As to the Qld clubs I mentioned.It was in response to Qlders who continually call for Sydney clubs to be relocated or merged.My response get the couple of Qld clubs in order,for a start,before pinning flags on maps.

And let me also note,I am for expansion,but it has to be done without alienating decent numbers of fans,by relocation or mergers.