The Bears

[T-Boon]

Grew up in the North Shore area, the Bears will never have any good juniors coming through because living on the North Shore is full of Chinese and Indian migrants who do not follow rugby league.

That would be a good expansion topic.

 

[Perth Red]

If the Bears want to be nomads then they might as well pair up with Perth. It allows the remaining Bears supporters to go watch their team in Sydney still at least. Also having the Bears as a NSW Cup side would also help decrease running costs of the Perth based team and help supplement junior numbers to some small degree.

Thats making a big assumption Perth wants to partner with a Sydney NSW cup club in ownership and brand. Personally I wouldn't be against it as long as it was 75% owned by Perth people, they put a guaranteed $1million a year on the table and there was no home games played in Sydney. By all means entice some Sydney club to take a game to NSO if needs be for nostalgia sake.

 

[The Great Dane]

Thats making a big assumption Perth wants to partner with a Sydney NSW cup club in ownership and brand. Personally I wouldn't be against it as long as it was 75% owned by Perth people, they put a guaranteed $1million a year on the table and there was no home games played in Sydney. By all means entice some Sydney club to take a game to NSO if needs be for nostalgia sake.

You're effectively asking that they pay for the privilege to give their brand and history away and receive nothing tangible back in return except for the opportunity to see their brand back in the NRL.

They'd never agree to such a lopsided deal, and nor should they because it wouldn't benefit either party.

 

[The Great Dane]

Ok Bad boy bunny good points.

No they're not, and pretending that they are in an attempt to save people's feelings is one of the major things that has held RL in this country back for generations.

It is not a requirement that the Sharks (or any other team) hold an NRL license for their juniors and grassroots footy in Cronulla to be maintained. In a sensible system it'd have nothing to do with them anyway.

Cronulla would only be 'lost' if it was abandoned by RL after the Sharks dropped out or if it was badly mishandled like NS. Yes you'd almost certainly lose most of the Sharks active fanbase, however I talk from experience when I say that that doesn't really matter. What matters is whether you can convert future generations of fans. Future generations whom will no more have a connection to the Sharks than the average punter in e.g. Glebe has to the Dirty Reds.
If you can do that and replace their current fanbase with another one that is larger and/or more valuable in some other way (see your own examples) then it's nothing but a win-win for the sport in the grand scheme of things.

Changing demographics, gentrification, and other similar factors aside, Glebe, Annandale, Newtown, etc, in RL, South Melbourne, Fitzroy, etc in AFL, St. Louis, Oakland, etc in American Football, etc, etc, etc, there're innumerable examples across the world, have not been irreparably 'lost' to a sports because their pro-team has be rationalised or folded, and assuming that the transition is handled well there's no reason why Cronulla, or any other Sydney club (it gets more tricky in one club cities), would be lost to RL either.

This idea that club's have a divine right to their license needs to die. Most sports leagues across the world have some sort of mechanism to remove or replace failing clubs (whether that be P&R or simply through reacting to market pressures), and all the arguments to support the argument that clubs should hold their licenses in perpetuity can eventually be boiled down to appeals to tradition (i.e. a terrible argument).

 

[MugaB]

No they're not, and pretending that they are in an attempt to save people's feelings is one of the major things that has held RL in this country back for generations.

It is not a requirement that the Sharks (or any other team) hold an NRL license for their juniors and grassroots footy in Cronulla to be maintained. In a sensible system it'd have nothing to do with them anyway.

Cronulla would only be 'lost' if it was abandoned by RL after the Sharks dropped out or if it was badly mishandled like NS. Yes you'd almost certainly lose most of the Sharks active fanbase, however I talk from experience when I say that that doesn't really matter. What matters is whether you can convert future generations of fans. Future generations whom will no more have a connection to the Sharks than the average punter in e.g. Glebe has to the Dirty Reds.
If you can do that and replace their current fanbase with another one that is larger and/or more valuable in some other way (see your own examples) then it's nothing but a win-win for the sport in the grand scheme of things.

Changing demographics, gentrification, and other similar factors aside, Glebe, Annandale, Newtown, etc, in RL, South Melbourne, Fitzroy, etc in AFL, St. Louis, Oakland, etc in American Football, etc, etc, etc, there're innumerable examples across the world, have not been irreparably 'lost' to a sports because their pro-team has be rationalised or folded, and assuming that the transition is handled well there's no reason why Cronulla, or any other Sydney club (it gets more tricky in one club cities), would be lost to RL either.

This idea that club's have a divine right to their license needs to die. Most sports leagues across the world have some sort of mechanism to remove or replace failing clubs (whether that be P&R or simply through reacting to market pressures), and all the arguments to support the argument that clubs should hold their licenses in perpetuity can eventually be boiled down to appeals to tradition (i.e. a terrible argument).

Its like the player manager argument, the player pays the manager....
The ARLC works for the clubs... who are the licence holders, and now the Dolphins have one... its funny how every post you make makes a great argument, but its lost in its "what would jesus do" rhetoric and not in this is what Murdoch, Vlandys, Packer, and Politis will push towards... im not having a go at you, but if you were betting against the dolphins not getting a license... realistically this game is probably not good for your stress levels... the amount of backroom politics that gets thrown around is amazing, most of the time its just so SBW can play 5 shit games for the roosters.. but when it comes to expansion its all about permission. You need blessing to cross bridges and hand out existence to non threatening clubs

 

[Dragonwest]

You're effectively asking that they pay for the privilege to give their brand and history away and receive nothing tangible back in return except for the opportunity to see their brand back in the NRL.

They'd never agree to such a lopsided deal, and nor should they because it wouldn't benefit either party.

Worked for Fitzroy/Brisbane Lions

 

[The Great Dane]

Worked for Fitzroy/Brisbane Lions

Fitzroy weren’t willing participants in their “merger” with Brisbane.

 

[RedVee]

So… maybe not the right spot for this question but anyway.

The 16 clubs are shareholders in the ARLC and can theoretically vote out a Commissioner. So… does Redcliffe The Dolphins get a slice? or miss out leaving the 16 with something more than no 17?

 

[Perth Red]

So… maybe not the right spot for this question but anyway.

The 16 clubs are shareholders in the ARLC and can theoretically vote out a Commissioner. So… does Redcliffe The Dolphins get a slice? or miss out leaving the 16 with something more than no 17?

I would imagine the constitution is worded that each club gets one vote so assume THE Dolphins will get one. Constitution was changed this year, see point 2, not sure if that has taken away this removal option now? Conveniently the max time spent as a director was changed and current directors tenure reset to zero! Currently you have to have 15 of 16 clubs agreeing to make changes to constitution.

Changes to ARLC Constitution approved

Members of the ARLC, the NRL clubs, NSWRL and QRL have unanimously approved changes to three rules within the ARLC Constitution at a Special General Meeting today.

www.nrl.com

 

[The Great Dane]

Its like the player manager argument, the player pays the manager....
The ARLC works for the clubs... who are the licence holders,

Wrong, as you effectively admit yourself.

The ARLC doesn't work for the clubs, the clubs are licence holders in one of the ARLC's competitions . In other words they are glorified franchises.

As franchises they get some say in how the business is run (most would argue too much in the NRL's case, but that's neither here nor there), however they neither own nor control the game and they are subject to the NRL and ARLC's rules and hold licenses at their whim.

Just as no player is bigger than the team no club is bigger than the game, and the sooner we as a sport remember that fact the better.

 

[Colk]

No they're not, and pretending that they are in an attempt to save people's feelings is one of the major things that has held RL in this country back for generations.

It is not a requirement that the Sharks (or any other team) hold an NRL license for their juniors and grassroots footy in Cronulla to be maintained. In a sensible system it'd have nothing to do with them anyway.

Cronulla would only be 'lost' if it was abandoned by RL after the Sharks dropped out or if it was badly mishandled like NS. Yes you'd almost certainly lose most of the Sharks active fanbase, however I talk from experience when I say that that doesn't really matter. What matters is whether you can convert future generations of fans. Future generations whom will no more have a connection to the Sharks than the average punter in e.g. Glebe has to the Dirty Reds.
If you can do that and replace their current fanbase with another one that is larger and/or more valuable in some other way (see your own examples) then it's nothing but a win-win for the sport in the grand scheme of things.

Changing demographics, gentrification, and other similar factors aside, Glebe, Annandale, Newtown, etc, in RL, South Melbourne, Fitzroy, etc in AFL, St. Louis, Oakland, etc in American Football, etc, etc, etc, there're innumerable examples across the world, have not been irreparably 'lost' to a sports because their pro-team has be rationalised or folded, and assuming that the transition is handled well there's no reason why Cronulla, or any other Sydney club (it gets more tricky in one club cities), would be lost to RL either.

This idea that club's have a divine right to their license needs to die. Most sports leagues across the world have some sort of mechanism to remove or replace failing clubs (whether that be P&R or simply through reacting to market pressures), and all the arguments to support the argument that clubs should hold their licenses in perpetuity can eventually be boiled down to appeals to tradition (i.e. a terrible argument).

I happen to agree with a lot of your points. The game has a lot of problems to address such as an ineffective player market, massive self interest in terms of clubs and media alike, conservative and myopic leadership that is incapable or unwilling to look at the game at a holistic level or recognise opportunities and lastly a complete saturation of Sydney clubs constructed on an archaic model of league clubs and direct junior development which is contrary to how any other professional sport operates. Many, if not all of these, are interconnected and stem from the Sydney competition and how it evolved.

Nevertheless, this is only my opinion and my opinion is formed from my own experiences. The same as Bad Boy Bubby. Now I can disagree with him and I can say that to him but I can see the validity of his points; so long as he respects mine, so why I would be contumelious about my point of view?

 

[siv]

I dont think we should stop at having multiple teams in a city

Lets go all the way and just have one team in all of Australia

 

[Colk]

I dont think we should stop at having multiple teams in a city

Lets go all the way and just have one team in all of Australia

Arguing against having 10 or 11 sides in one state is not really equivalent to the contention that arguing on that side is some sort of neo John Ribot. Somewhat of a false equivalence

 

[bad boy bubby]

I happen to agree with a lot of your points. The game has a lot of problems to address such as an ineffective player market, massive self interest in terms of clubs and media alike, conservative and myopic leadership that is incapable or unwilling to look at the game at a holistic level or recognise opportunities and lastly a complete saturation of Sydney clubs constructed on an archaic model of league clubs and direct junior development which is contrary to how any other professional sport operates. Many, if not all of these, are interconnected and stem from the Sydney competition and how it evolved.

Nevertheless, this is only my opinion and my opinion is formed from my own experiences. The same as Bad Boy Bubby. Now I can disagree with him and I can say that to him but I can see the validity of his points; so long as he respects mine, so why I would be contumelious about my point of view?

@Colk I have no problems at all with your opinions, and we have shown each other respect in a discussion. No probs by me.
@The Great Dane I also have no problems with yours. I am going to explain something to you here which you probably do not know.
The Sharks as a team name is totally embedded in the Sutherland Shire. Every rep team is called The Sharks. Soccer, Baseball, AFL, Hockey, Netball..... And those are just the ones off the top of my head, plus they all bare the same colours, black, white and blue.
Many businesses have also called themselves Shark with whatever business they are. I saw one today Sharkcrete.
The name "Shark" , MEANS you are from The Shire, and they have all taken it after the Cronulla Sutherland Shark Rugby League Club.
The area will not succumb to having another team taking over the area in the NRL, not for many, many generations.
The name and the colours of our team are deeply entrenched in the whole community, and this community are sports crazy. Not only have the Sharks got the second most participants under the NRL banner, they also have the largest junior soccer participants in the Southern hemisphere. Forget about Scomo (He's not really from there) and his religion, the real religion in the Shire is sport, and the Grandfather of all of them is the Cronulla Sutherland Rugby League Club.
Take that team away and the area will be lost to rugby league, the people will never forget.

 

[Reflector]

@Colk I have no problems at all with your opinions, and we have shown each other respect in a discussion. No probs by me.
@The Great Dane I also have no problems with yours. I am going to explain something to you here which you probably do not know.
The Sharks as a team name is totally embedded in the Sutherland Shire. Every rep team is called The Sharks. Soccer, Baseball, AFL, Hockey, Netball..... And those are just the ones off the top of my head, plus they all bare the same colours, black, white and blue.
Many businesses have also called themselves Shark with whatever business they are. I saw one today Sharkcrete.
The name "Shark" , MEANS you are from The Shire, and they have all taken it after the Cronulla Sutherland Shark Rugby League Club.
The area will not succumb to having another team taking over the area in the NRL, not for many, many generations.
The name and the colours of our team are deeply entrenched in the whole community, and this community are sports crazy. Not only have the Sharks got the second most participants under the NRL banner, they also have the largest junior soccer participants in the Southern hemisphere. Forget about Scomo (He's not really from there) and his religion, the real religion in the Shire is sport, and the Grandfather of all of them is the Cronulla Sutherland Rugby League Club.
Take that team away and the area will be lost to rugby league, the people will never forget.

It's like that also out in PENRITH!!!

Plenty of businesses with 'Panthers' in their name somewhere.

 

[bad boy bubby]

It's like that also out in PENRITH!!!

Plenty of businesses with 'Panthers' in their name somewhere.

Exactly mate. I used to work out at Penrith for years and I saw it.
We are cousins somewhat, our two teams, so it's not surprising.

 

[Colk]

No problems Bad Boy Bubby. Would obviously love for the game to go national and to reach its potential as I’m sure we all want, so not deathriding any club in particular, just trying to work out in my mind how the hell we get there.

Thanks for the insight on the Cronulla stuff as well

 

[bad boy bubby]

No problems Bad Boy Bubby. Would obviously love for the game to go national and to reach its potential as I’m sure we all want, so not deathriding any club in particular, just trying to work out in my mind how the hell we get there.

Thanks for the insight on the Cronulla stuff as well

I too want it national. I lived in Western Australia in the early 90's. I was there when the Reds got accepted to join, I'd left before they started playing.
In Perth at the time, there was a big rugby league following. Some pubs actually classified themselves as followers of the sport and not AFL aligned.
I haven't been there for a long while now so I cannot comment what it's like, all I know is there is so much potential over there. So many uploads that I am sure this time around it will be a success.
I'm not sold on Adelaide. I definitely think a central QLD, or a second NZ team would be more the go than them. I only think an affiliation with an established side would work in Adelaide.

 

[Colk]

Yeah right. Interesting about your history living in Perth. I have been over there a couple of times mainly for work and there’s so much money and potential what with TV scheduling, business and people from the east coast who would love to go and see a game. I just hope that they see that opportunity.

Adelaide would have to be a relocation I agree. Whilst I worry about the Warriors a little bit I think it would work in terms of tale

 

[bad boy bubby]

Yeah right. Interesting about your history living in Perth. I have been over there a couple of times mainly for work and there’s so much money and potential what with TV scheduling, business and people from the east coast who would love to go and see a game. I just hope that they see that opportunity.

Adelaide would have to be a relocation I agree. Whilst I worry about the Warriors a little bit I think it would work in terms of tale

I don't think relocation would work in Adelaide. I think an affiliation with an established club, obviously a Sydney one, playing 3 or 4 games a year there.
And before asked, yes I would accept that from the Sharks. The only problem being that they would want the Storm to play against us there..... And that I wouldn't accept. We love/hate them more than anyone. That has to be played at our home ground.