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!

The Bears

flippikat

Bench
Messages
3,213
I’m sure the NRL could take the licence, much like Knights or Titans and then re-sell it with conditions, say a Sydney club to relocate
That's the ideal. Take the licence, sell to a consortium in a market that'll add value and expand the footprint of the NRL.
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
5,624
Whose gone bust? Tigers needed an NRL loan for the Balmain payments, Dragons needed a loan. Sharks to my knowledge and despite some big loss years haven't had an NRL loan. I'm not aware of any club going into administration or bankruptcy and NRL handing them money to get out of fit?
Why are we restricting it strictly to the NRL era?

With the possible exception of the Dragons, all of the clubs that have been mentioned in our conversation have gone bankrupt and been bailed out throughout their history, many of them multiple times.

Furthermore where would Balmain and the Dragons be without those loans? We can't know for sure, but I think it's fair to say that it's more likely than not that they would have been in a significantly worse spot without them, and those loans effectively came with no strings attracted.

Which swings back to my original point; with the exception of Newtown (and that case isn't cut and dried) my whole life every administration has talked a big game about natural attrition, but backed down when it came time to allow "traditional clubs" to die.
Pretty sure Tinkler was broke and wanted rid of them, and Titans were sold back to the same people involved in it going bust.
Yes in theory the NRL could take the license, fund the remaining season and try to rush the start up of a new club somewhere else for the following season but they have never done that and likely never will.
Both the Knights and Titans cases are examples of what I'm talking about. The clubs failed, the NRL stepped in, steadied the ship, then sold them to new owners. Yes the Titans were sold into the control of a previous owner (and, IIRC, ex-CEO or whatever Frizelle was prior to becoming an owner), but only after they created a strong business plan and their financials had been vetted (and most if not all other options planned to at least partially relocate the club, which wasn't ideal in the GC's case for reasons outside of the NRL's control).

There's no reason why that couldn't or shouldn't have been done in the case of other clubs, or in the case of clubs in the future, and there's no reason why those clubs couldn't have been relocated, or at least forced to make significant changes, as part of the process where it would have been beneficial.

BTW, Despite the fact that it's happened pretty regularly throughout sporting history (particularly in America), and the NSWRL did it in the case of the old GC clubs (twice IIRC), nobody said that the NRL would have to flip a team/license in time for the following season. In fact rushing things like that generally leads to poor results.
 
Last edited:

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
5,624
That's the ideal. Take the licence, sell to a consortium in a market that'll add value and expand the footprint of the NRL.
Not necessarily.

For example, in the case of the Tigers it may have been in the interest of the NRL to only bail out Balmain's portion of the merger, if they, and Wests, agreed to stop playing games at Leichardt, move the majority to of the rest to Campbelltown, and increase their presence in the South West market.

That way the NRL at least attempts to force significant change and get a good outcome for the sport. If Balmain, or West's Ashfield for that matter, had refused to agree to the terms then that's fine as well, but at least they've tried to make change instead of just reasserting a status quo that has failed.
 
Messages
6,006
Quite a few Sydney clubs were in trouble in the 1990s. Western Suburbs played a few seasons without a sponsor and were just making up the numbers from 1997 until end of 1999. They performed well on the field in 1996, but were in deep shit off it. Illawarra, Balmain and St George were also struggling. North Sydney were in a bad place. Cronulla ran to Super League for the money. I think Parramatta were in strife at one point and wanted to merge with Penrith.

The mergers were done in hast and f**ked the game up, setting it back decades. We have some areas overrepresented by small clubs that have no chance of growing into a powerhouse.

What should have happened.

Balmain + Parramatta. Parramatta Tigers. Based at Parramatta Stadium.

North Sydney + Manly. North Sydney Sea Eagles. Based at SFS.

South Sydney + Dragons. South Sydney Dragons. Based at SFS.

Sydney Roosters at SFS.

Cronulla + Illawarra. Illawarra Sharks. Based at Wollongong Stadium.

Canterbury + Western Suburbs. Western Sydney Bulldogs. Based at Stadium Australia and Campbelltown.

Penrith Panthers at Penrith Football Stadium.

That's six teams in Sydney and one in Wollongong. With the Newcastle Knights there's eight teams in NSW. Still a lot but less than clustered than what we've currently got. Having two of the eight based outside of Sydney is good for the CRL and makes RL the most represented sport in the state servicing all major regions. All major markets in metropolitan Sydney are represented by the seven clubs under this model. Swans and Waratahs would have more competition in the CBD and its surrounds. More games played in the richest and most visited part of Australia's largest city is a good thing for the sport.
 

siv

First Grade
Messages
5,619
Not necessarily.

For example, in the case of the Tigers it may have been in the interest of the NRL to only bail out Balmain's portion of the merger, if they, and Wests, agreed to stop playing games at Leichardt, move the majority to of the rest to Campbelltown, and increase their presence in the South West market.

That way the NRL at least attempts to force significant change and get a good outcome for the sport. If Balmain, or West's Ashfield for that matter, had refused to agree to the terms then that's fine as well, but at least they've tried to make change instead of just reasserting a status quo that has failed.
The Balmain issue has already been addressed

Over the course of history a lot has come down to what had been happenning at that time

In the 40s there was a big dispute between the CRL and NSWRL that triggered the entry if Parramatta

Easts were on skid row before the Tutty Case and their rejection of a salary cap in the early 70s allowed them to buy players on mass

We almost had Wenty in FG a few times

Bears were put in standby for Cronulla

But recently the NRL in the privitisation world has adopted a strategy of propping up a licence short term while a buyer thst keeps the colours, emblem and name alive

That why Balmain control has reverted to Wests Ashfield
St George to WIN
Newcastle to Wests LC

I cant see this strategy changing too much as the IP of existing clubs is worth more than what most new clubs can bring to the table
 

Reflector

Juniors
Messages
1,689
Neither should get an NRL license, at least not in this lifetime... Definitely not while metropolises go without or underrepresented.

What would Balmain bring to a merger with Easts?

They're broke, they've got f**k all fans left, and Easts already owns their own Tigers brand. So Easts don't need Balmain and if they did partner Balmain would end up in the exact same position as they are now in their current merger; a ting minority partner whom bring nothing to the table and are more trouble than they are worth.

If West Ashfield had the least interest in focusing their efforts on Campbelltown it would have happened a decade ago. They don't and they never will unless there's a massive change in their way of thinking. They're convinced that there's more money in the Inner West sponsorship market than there is in the whole South West market. They're wrong, but what are you going to do, the NRL doesn't have a mechanism to force the clubs to work in the best interest of the sport or league.

CC is never ever going to happen, and even the Bears know it. That's why they wrapped the CC Bears bid up for good a few years ago and have created a new (even more stupid) bid.

If the Bears were truly serious about getting back into the NRL at any cost then they should have started doing work in an expansion market (WA, SA, maybe even Vic or NZ) 15+ years ago, with a goal of launching a bid from there. They haven't done that, and they never will because the people in charge are stuck in the past with delusions of the Bears one day running onto NSO every second week again.

In other words their heads are firmly stuck up their own arses, and as a Bears fan it's very frustrating.

At this point I'm a geriatric and people in power have been talking about 'natural attrition' for as long as I can remember. With the sole exception of Newtown (whom were sabotaged by Wests in the end), every time it's come time to let a 'traditional club' die of natural attrition they've always backed down, and I see no reason why that pattern will suddenly change, especially if it's one of the power brokers club's on the line.

Of course that's why you're pushing 'natural attrition', because you know that when push comes to shove the establishment will happily bail out failed clubs over and over without any repercussions.
I wanted to get back to this post but hadn't had time;

What Balmain would bring to a merger with Easts is a tangible link to the Tigers brand, a brand that makes up the majority of the support of Wests Tigers to this day. If you think Balmain have f**k all fans, look how many fans you see at WT games rocking Balmain gear as opposed to Magpies gear.

Balmain had looked at relocation to SEQ back in the 90's as the East Coast Tigers and there are plenty of old Tigers fans who relocated up that way over the past few decades. They (plus the Easts fans and new fans in SEQ) will make up the Tigers support.

Re. Wests and Campbelltown- S-W Sydney is a big growth area. With the NRL's prompting and support, we could have Wests focused on this area full-time, as opposed to the current half-baked Wests Tigers outfit playing the majority of it's games in Parramatta or the no-man's land that is Stadium Australia.

The ROI (in terms of growing the NRL in SEQ and league at grassroots level in S-W Sydney, plus ensuring the identity of two foundation clubs lives on) outweighs what we've seen from the current Wests Tigers organisation: a nomadic entity with a vague identity that plays no more than a handful of token games at Leichardt and Campbelltown every year.

Not sure where the idea of the Bears returning full-time to NSO in the NRL is coming from? The CC is a growth area with the highest number of grassroots clubs/ players not represented by an NRL entity. It makes far more sense for the Bears to relocate there and focus on that area (with the combined financial support of Norths and the north shore corporate backers) than moving them to Perth or Adelaide or Darwin or anywhere like that.


Perth= works for commercial and TV scheduling purposes.
SEQ= works for commercial, scheduling and growing the NRL/ league in a state that already has the interest, culture and infrastructure to support this growth.
S-W Sydney= see SEQ.
CC= works for commercial purposes AND growing the NRL/ league in a region that already has the interest, culture and infrastructure to support this growth.

i.e we get expansion into key growth areas, consolidation of existing league areas that are currently under-utilised AND rather than killing off brands that have support going back decades, we revitalise them.

Besides the Wests Tigers (and I've already spoken about the best solution for them) I'm interested to hear from people what are the other Sydney clubs that should be merged or relocated to make the game bigger and better, as a whole? Haven't we learned from the AFL that setting up teams in areas that couldn't care less about Aussie Rules and have virtually no junior numbers is an obscene waste of resources?
 

mongoose

First Grade
Messages
9,196
Haven't we learned from the AFL that setting up teams in areas that couldn't care less about Aussie Rules and have virtually no junior numbers is an obscene waste of resources?
is this true though? people on this forum just say this because they hate AFL.
 

Reflector

Juniors
Messages
1,689
is this true though? people on this forum just say this because they hate AFL.
How much is it costing the AFL every year to fund these teams? Taking into account crowd numbers, memberships, grassroots Aussie Rules numbers (not counting kids who do Auskick at school for a term) the ROI tells the full story.

Theoretically, the Suns COULD work because the GC is full of expats. But they run the same risks as virtually any other professional sporting team that's ever existed on the GC- they can thrive as a fad when the team is either new or doing well. Apart from those moments, it's difficult for a GC-based professional sports organisation to remain viable.

GWS reeks of the AFL's inability to understand areas outside their heartland. Nobody ever refers to themselves as coming from Greater Western Sydney. League is the #1 code in western Sydney, followed by football. Aussie Rules is (at best) a niche sport. On top of that, they can't even focus on the one area, instead splitting home games between Blacktown and Canberra.

The AFL has to force-feed expansion into new areas. The NRL has areas beating on the door to be let in. The AFL would LOVE to have this dilemma. Cutting/ merging teams to admit teams from areas that a) aren't league areas and would require huge ongoing investment to stay afloat, let alone thrive and b) have barely expressed interest or a legitimate bid, is shooting ourselves in the foot.
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
5,624
I wanted to get back to this post but hadn't had time;

What Balmain would bring to a merger with Easts is a tangible link to the Tigers brand, a brand that makes up the majority of the support of Wests Tigers to this day. If you think Balmain have f**k all fans, look how many fans you see at WT games rocking Balmain gear as opposed to Magpies gear.
Okay, but how valuable would that "tangible link" actually be in real terms.

To keep things simple we'll carry on with your example of people wearing Balmain gear at Wests tigers games.

Now lets be very charitable and assume that all of them can accurately be described as Balmain fans, and none of them are just Wests Tigers fans in a heritage kit (which, to be clear, is a faulty assumption). Then we'll be even more charitable and estimate that 5k fans at your average Wests match are "Balmain fans" as you describe.

Now we have that (very) charitable estimate of 5k, what percentage do you think would be willing to continue actively supporting the club once they've relocated to Brisbane/merged?
I'll tell you right now that it's not a very large percentage, but for sake of argument, and to again be charitable with our estimates, lets say 50% even though I speak from experience when I say that the actual number would be significantly lower than that.

Now lets extrapolate from there that roughly the same percentage of their broader fanbase would continue to support the club after the relocation/merger, and that leaves the real terms value of your "tangible link" as a charitable average of an extra 2.5k fans at Brisbane Tigers away games in Sydney and a few thousand extra people watching on TV (keeping in mind that realistically those numbers would be significantly lower).

In reality that wouldn't be very valuable to the club or league in real terms, and I think it's reasonable to describe that as 'f**k all fans'.

Furthermore it'd come with tons of baggage, as it's inevitable that taking those actions would have negative effects on the new club's potential fanbase in Brisbane. I'd go so far as to say that you'd potentially turn off more people than you would gain by "linking" with Balmain, but you'd need to do extensive market research to confirm that.

If the goal is solely to re-engage with the Balmain fanbase (and I'm not necessarily saying that it is or should be), then you'd be better off folding the Wests Tigers, handing their license to a new team, and putting some money, exposure, and good heads behind a Balmain NSW Cup side that plays out of Leichhardt full time. If you played your cards right you'd get better engagement from the Balmain fanbase, and you'd do it without impacting on another market.

A large part of the rest of your post is waffle built off the faulty premise I've addressed here, or short-sighted attacks on the AFL that I have no interest in rehashing for the thousandth time, so it's not really worth the effort to go though the rest of your post, so I'll just leave mine here.
 

LimeRick

Juniors
Messages
22
How much is it costing the AFL every year to fund these teams? Taking into account crowd numbers, memberships, grassroots Aussie Rules numbers (not counting kids who do Auskick at school for a term) the ROI tells the full story.

Theoretically, the Suns COULD work because the GC is full of expats. But they run the same risks as virtually any other professional sporting team that's ever existed on the GC- they can thrive as a fad when the team is either new or doing well. Apart from those moments, it's difficult for a GC-based professional sports organisation to remain viable.

GWS reeks of the AFL's inability to understand areas outside their heartland. Nobody ever refers to themselves as coming from Greater Western Sydney. League is the #1 code in western Sydney, followed by football. Aussie Rules is (at best) a niche sport. On top of that, they can't even focus on the one area, instead splitting home games between Blacktown and Canberra.

The AFL has to force-feed expansion into new areas. The NRL has areas beating on the door to be let in. The AFL would LOVE to have this dilemma. Cutting/ merging teams to admit teams from areas that a) aren't league areas and would require huge ongoing investment to stay afloat, let alone thrive and b) have barely expressed interest or a legitimate bid, is shooting ourselves in the foot.

GWS may be a bit force-fed, but it's not like it was the AFL's only option.

Tasmania has been begging for a team to the point they've had to make threats.

I'm a fan of both league and AFL (is that even allowed on this site) and I think Canberra could easily host an AFL team without the effort GWS has needed.

The NT are also pushing for a team and Perth has been raised about getting a third team.

The AFL didn't pick Western Sydney as they were out of options. They picked it because there 2 million in an untapped market. They've already got 30k members (probably 20k actually in Sydney), so all they needed was .01% of the population, and they've already got it. And the larger TV rights more than underwrote it. It'll likely slowly grow over time too.

The reward is much bigger than smaller heartland areas they can expand to later.

It's the same as Perth and the NRL. It's a big city. It doesn't need a large chunk of the pie to be successful. And there's so much room to grow once it's established.
 

Colk

Juniors
Messages
1,765
How much is it costing the AFL every year to fund these teams? Taking into account crowd numbers, memberships, grassroots Aussie Rules numbers (not counting kids who do Auskick at school for a term) the ROI tells the full story.

Theoretically, the Suns COULD work because the GC is full of expats. But they run the same risks as virtually any other professional sporting team that's ever existed on the GC- they can thrive as a fad when the team is either new or doing well. Apart from those moments, it's difficult for a GC-based professional sports organisation to remain viable.

GWS reeks of the AFL's inability to understand areas outside their heartland. Nobody ever refers to themselves as coming from Greater Western Sydney. League is the #1 code in western Sydney, followed by football. Aussie Rules is (at best) a niche sport. On top of that, they can't even focus on the one area, instead splitting home games between Blacktown and Canberra.

The AFL has to force-feed expansion into new areas. The NRL has areas beating on the door to be let in. The AFL would LOVE to have this dilemma. Cutting/ merging teams to admit teams from areas that a) aren't league areas and would require huge ongoing investment to stay afloat, let alone thrive and b) have barely expressed interest or a legitimate bid, is shooting ourselves in the foot.

I hate AFL probably more than anybody else but if you take emotion out of it and compare revenue, profile and sponsorship then it’s impossible to argue against their expansion strategy.

Now the Suns and Giants might have been too ambitious but the Swans and Lions have been an unmitigated success and something RL should want to replicate.

On the second matter of teams/areas wanting to join the NRL, well that’s important only in so far as those areas actually add something tangible to the competition. You can put in a side in the CC if you want (and that area might in turn want to be in the competition) but they are going to add a lot less than what Perth or even Adelaide would add. Again, to compare, it’s the same reason why Western Sydney have a team in the AFL and Tasmania doesn’t: the potential upside in the former is far greater than the latter.
 

Colk

Juniors
Messages
1,765
I hate AFL probably more than anybody else but if you take emotion out of it and compare revenue, profile and sponsorship then it’s impossible to argue against their expansion strategy.

Now the Suns and Giants might have been too ambitious but the Swans and Lions have been an unmitigated success and something RL should want to replicate.

On the second matter of teams/areas wanting to join the NRL, well that’s important only in so far as those areas actually add something tangible to the competition. You can put in a side in the CC if you want (and that area might in turn want to be in the competition) but they are going to add a lot less than what Perth or even Adelaide would add. Again, to compare, it’s the same reason why Western Sydney have a team in the AFL and Tasmania doesn’t: the potential upside in the former is far greater than the latter.
GWS may be a bit force-fed, but it's not like it was the AFL's only option.

Tasmania has been begging for a team to the point they've had to make threats.

I'm a fan of both league and AFL (is that even allowed on this site) and I think Canberra could easily host an AFL team without the effort GWS has needed.

The NT are also pushing for a team and Perth has been raised about getting a third team.

The AFL didn't pick Western Sydney as they were out of options. They picked it because there 2 million in an untapped market. They've already got 30k members (probably 20k actually in Sydney), so all they needed was .01% of the population, and they've already got it. And the larger TV rights more than underwrote it. It'll likely slowly grow over time too.

The reward is much bigger than smaller heartland areas they can expand to later.

It's the same as Perth and the NRL. It's a big city. It doesn't need a large chunk of the pie to be successful. And there's so much room to grow once it's established.

I see that I have said pretty much the same thing as LimeRIck (a fellow Raider brethren) has said but much less eloquently. It’s a simple risk-reward situation
 

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
49,630
How much is it costing the AFL every year to fund these teams? Taking into account crowd numbers, memberships, grassroots Aussie Rules numbers (not counting kids who do Auskick at school for a term) the ROI tells the full story.

Theoretically, the Suns COULD work because the GC is full of expats. But they run the same risks as virtually any other professional sporting team that's ever existed on the GC- they can thrive as a fad when the team is either new or doing well. Apart from those moments, it's difficult for a GC-based professional sports organisation to remain viable.

GWS reeks of the AFL's inability to understand areas outside their heartland. Nobody ever refers to themselves as coming from Greater Western Sydney. League is the #1 code in western Sydney, followed by football. Aussie Rules is (at best) a niche sport. On top of that, they can't even focus on the one area, instead splitting home games between Blacktown and Canberra.

The AFL has to force-feed expansion into new areas. The NRL has areas beating on the door to be let in. The AFL would LOVE to have this dilemma. Cutting/ merging teams to admit teams from areas that a) aren't league areas and would require huge ongoing investment to stay afloat, let alone thrive and b) have barely expressed interest or a legitimate bid, is shooting ourselves in the foot.
They spend around $150mill a year all up on 4 expansion clubs and all the grassroots investment they are making in nsw and qlnd. Sounds a lot until you realise they manage to make $250mill a year more revenue than the nrl. They can afford it And arguably their genuine national footprint and 5 metro city reach is a big contributor to that revenue gap.
 

mongoose

First Grade
Messages
9,196
GWS may be a bit force-fed, but it's not like it was the AFL's only option.

Tasmania has been begging for a team to the point they've had to make threats.

I'm a fan of both league and AFL (is that even allowed on this site) and I think Canberra could easily host an AFL team without the effort GWS has needed.

The NT are also pushing for a team and Perth has been raised about getting a third team.

The AFL didn't pick Western Sydney as they were out of options. They picked it because there 2 million in an untapped market. They've already got 30k members (probably 20k actually in Sydney), so all they needed was .01% of the population, and they've already got it. And the larger TV rights more than underwrote it. It'll likely slowly grow over time too.

The reward is much bigger than smaller heartland areas they can expand to later.

It's the same as Perth and the NRL. It's a big city. It doesn't need a large chunk of the pie to be successful. And there's so much room to grow once it's established.

the mentality of many on these boards is - NRL will never be bigger than AFL in Perth so why bother :rolleyes:
 

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
49,630
News Corp don't want a team in Perth, change their mind and you'll get a team in Perth.
Or get a Commission that does whats best for the game not what News Ltd want?
Do you think New Ltd pushed for another AFL team in Sydney or on the Gold Coast?
Seeing as TV hasnt effectively paid any more for the Dolphins what they want really doesn't matter.
 
Messages
6,006
the mentality of many on these boards is - NRL will never be bigger than AFL in Perth so why bother :rolleyes:

It just needs to be sustainable. Their bid has some wealthy backers behind it, so it should be no worse than the current Titans set-up.

News Corp don't want a team in Perth, change their mind and you'll get a team in Perth.

Unfortunately you're right. It's why I think there's a good chance of Brisbane 3 getting in if the ARLC cannot find a bidder for NZ 2.

Or get a Commission that does whats best for the game not what News Ltd want?
Do you think New Ltd pushed for another AFL team in Sydney or on the Gold Coast?
Seeing as TV hasnt effectively paid any more for the Dolphins what they want really doesn't matter.

It's set up to give all the power to the clubs, QRL and NSWRL. They'll do whatever Murdoch says because he pays their wages. News Ltd is still running the game, albeit through stealth.
 
Messages
3,800
Quite a few Sydney clubs were in trouble in the 1990s. Western Suburbs played a few seasons without a sponsor and were just making up the numbers from 1997 until end of 1999. They performed well on the field in 1996, but were in deep shit off it. Illawarra, Balmain and St George were also struggling. North Sydney were in a bad place. Cronulla ran to Super League for the money. I think Parramatta were in strife at one point and wanted to merge with Penrith.

The mergers were done in hast and f**ked the game up, setting it back decades. We have some areas overrepresented by small clubs that have no chance of growing into a powerhouse.

What should have happened.

Balmain + Parramatta. Parramatta Tigers. Based at Parramatta Stadium.

North Sydney + Manly. North Sydney Sea Eagles. Based at SFS.

South Sydney + Dragons. South Sydney Dragons. Based at SFS.

Sydney Roosters at SFS.

Cronulla + Illawarra. Illawarra Sharks. Based at Wollongong Stadium.

Canterbury + Western Suburbs. Western Sydney Bulldogs. Based at Stadium Australia and Campbelltown.

Penrith Panthers at Penrith Football Stadium.

That's six teams in Sydney and one in Wollongong. With the Newcastle Knights there's eight teams in NSW. Still a lot but less than clustered than what we've currently got. Having two of the eight based outside of Sydney is good for the CRL and makes RL the most represented sport in the state servicing all major regions. All major markets in metropolitan Sydney are represented by the seven clubs under this model. Swans and Waratahs would have more competition in the CBD and its surrounds. More games played in the richest and most visited part of Australia's largest city is a good thing for the sport.
Parramatta and Penrith - New Name - Western Sydney
St George Illawarra/Cronulla and Souths - New Name - Southern Sydney/Illawarra
Roosters - New Name -Eastern Sydney
Wests/ Canterbury - New Name-South Western Sydney
Manly/Norths/Central Coast - New Name - Northern Sydney/Central Coast

5 teams

Plus

Knights
Raiders
Storm
Broncos
Cowboys
Titans
Warriors

12 teams

Expansion

Dolphins
Central QLD
Perth
NZ 2
Adelaide
PNG

18 Teams

2 conferences
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,006
Parramatta and Penrith - New Name - Western Sydney
St George Illawarra/Cronulla and Souths - New Name - Southern Sydney/Illawarra
Roosters - New Name -Eastern Sydney
Wests/ Canterbury - New Name-South Western Sydney
Manly/Norths/Central Coast - New Name - Northern Sydney/Central Coast
That would be much better than the current system. I like your idea.
 
Top