The Case for Adelaide.....

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

WtG? 9 million dollar cap, what part of that doesn't compute, i already said that any team could be based on the moon and still be able to compete with a 9million dollar cap, its all about sticking it out, time it takes to nurture an expansion team, ....money to fund a club?? seriously how many hand outs have the tigers, dragons and other clubs had..

I know the teams get a $13M annual grant, but PR said teams need at least $25M-$30M to be competitive. So if I am reading that right, then they will need to find another $12M-$17M.

The grant covers the cap, but teams need to spend big on their football department, such as having state of the art technology to monitor players' fitness levels so they can know when a player is in peak condition or if their body is winding down.

Matty Bowen was forced into retirement on the basis his speed and distance covered per game and at training were winding down. Teams use this data to determine if a player is valuable to the team and what position he is best suited to. Then there's the physios, chiropractors, dieticians, stadium hire, travel expenses, talent scouts and other elements of sports science that each team is trying to perfect to gain an advantage over other clubs. Board members don't work for peanuts either and take home a good salary. It's becoming like F1 in how they condition the players and monitor their fitness and diet. The powerful teams can afford the best accommodation and air travel to keep their players primed.

I think Tony Sage said the Glory needed to draw an average of 13k per home match to cover stadium hire costs at Perth Oval.

What sort of crowds will a Perth team draw?

Heartland clubs struggle to draw 13k to some games, so it's not unreasonable to think the Pirates might have a few games where they don't attract enough fans to cover stadium hire costs. That, on top of flights to and from the east coast each week, will require significant funds. The extra travel might hamper player performance, much like it has for Cowboys and Warriors.

Queenslanders and New South Welshman might need to be paid overs to tempt them to leave their home for Perth.

Perth Wildcats NBL team can hire star imports from America and Europe. Perth Glory can sign imports from all around the world. Perth Scorchers can hire imports. Pirates might be stuck luring Aussies playing in the Super League who are past their prime and unwanted by the other 16 clubs, plus Englishmen, Papuans and Fijians. They might even have to raid RU.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Sorry but i don't agree, yes in theory they wont rate in Sydney and Brisbane over time, but neither does clubs IN sydney like manly, and bulldogs, then theres Qlds ugly dukling the titans...some teams just are hated for one reason or another, and just dont rate for that year or several years,


So as much as this Sydney centric game has grown, there is sooo much upside if the whole pacifika region including all cities in Australia had a team... if super netball can have a sunshine coast team and a Perth team, why cant we?

This. Absolutely couldn't agree with this more.

Put the kettle on and have a read on my opinion here if you like - there is (some!) relevance here..

Personally (while i never pretend to be the prime demographic of all league fans) - nowadays I will watch my team play, and maybe one or two other games per round. Of the non-dragons games, most matches couldn't interest me less, there are some I might turn on if i've got a spare few hours (which I'll join a game day thread to make it more interesting), and there's the very occasional one I'll make time for to watch.

My attention is more elsewhere these days - If i'm not busy with work, family etc - I've got so many more options to fill my eyeballs to entertain me. Social Media, Netflix, my frigging lphone... And I'm in my 40's... kids these days have been brought up on this stuff and so their attention as they grow older will be even more diverted than mine...

Would this average kid in 10, or 20 years' time - say a Dragons fan - with a Saturday afternoon to spare, rather watch

• Cronulla vs Manly
• Any movie or show they like on Netflix, Amazon...
• Facebook/Tik-tok/Snapchat/Instagram
• Xbox/Playstation
• Youtube
• their iphone 26
• Grot on pronhub..
• Whatever other devices/media/game platforms arise

So what does that have to do with expansion?

A set of eyeballs is the same whether they are in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra, Auckland, Perth, Adelaide, Townsville, Newcastle. Like a dollar coin - it doesn't matter who gave you the coin - a bloke at the shop or the queen - it's still worth the same. Eyeballs mean ratings, ratings equals sponsors, sponsors equals revenue. No matter where these eyeballs are located.

And so do we want the game to regress, stagnate, or grow?

Or in other words, where are the areas that the game can increase its viewership, against all its competitors?

Let's consider where the existing teams are firstly.

Sydney - Are new fans going to flock to the game? If so, from where and why?? While making up a vast number of current eyeballs on TV - my feeling is Sydney is highly unlikely to increase it's viewership and attendance. But it is a huge pillar of the sport and needs to be protected.

• Growth opportunity - limited/minimal.

Brisbane - A 2nd team in brisbane will no doubt strengthen the 2nd pillar of fans in the league. And help stave off the AFL "invasion" - which is there as we speak, and has been for while, whether you like it or not.

• Growth opportunity - good/strong

Melbourne - Tough to grow. High performing team that is arguably the best performed over a sustained period of time since St George in the 50's & 60's. The key is maintaining this to maintain their presence. Not only do they have all the other platforms seeking their attention, Melbourne Storm are up against 9 other local, established AFL teams who - apart from the odd occasion - will have a match that competes at the same time as a Storm Game. They are in the toughest market for Rugby League.

• Growth opportunity - limited/minimal.

Newcastle, Canberra, Townsville, - these areas may grow with their individual population growth. They are strong regional centres which give some credibility to making this the NRL (not NSWRL). But all are firmly established and a core part of the NATIONAL Rugby League. Rugby League Heartland areas which we've taken the game to. Canberra & Townsville had many many detractors when they came in, they've since proven themselves despite their individual challenges.

• Growth Opportunity - limited.

Gold Coast. The perennial headache spot for Australian professional sporting teams. While a successful team will no doubt help - it's yet to prove it can sustain a successful sporting team in ANY Sport. I see a big potential here, it's

• Growth opportunity - good (despite poor history).

Auckland. Big population with an underperforming club of 25 years. Rugby Union is huge competitor - but is not as far removed from League as AFL is. But no doubt the club needs to establish sustained success on the field to truly capture new eyeballs - rather than rolling eyeballs as they have done for 25 years.

• Growth opportunity - good.

So if I'm anything like Nostradamus - if the NRL wishes to grow its game (rather than Stagnate or Regress) it's best opportunities lie with Brisbane, The Gold Coast and Auckland (NZ) without further expansion.

As for proposed expansion areas. No doubt ALL of these areas can bring new eyeballs to the sport - at the game or on TV. The degree of which has varying factors.

Perth and Adelaide

Firstly - you're effectively starting at zero eyeballs of course so anything here will increase veiwers. But by how much?

Competition from AFL?

They will (and only ever will) compete with only 2 other local, established AFL teams. There is far more opportunity to play a Reds or Rams game when there is no AFL being played in town. So in comparison to the Melbourne Storm - I see there growth opportunity as good as Melbourne is, but possibly even greater (despite the lower population base of 2M and 1.4M respectively).

Both have also proven following in other sports as "1 team towns" and regularly draw high crowds to their games, while the local news/sport etc always promotes the fortunes of their teams. Both have history of RL teams in the SL era - underperformed sides in a brief period - but also exhibition matches which have been well attended.

Perth and Adelaide aren't as big as the East Coast Capitals - but they are big enough to be significant while small enough to be highly communal.

New Zealand 2 (outside Auckland)

The opportunity is big should the Warriors get their act together. Which would help both teams in the long run. Competition further south is very heavy with Rugby Union. Others from NZ like Flippikat can comment more on the local "forecast" than I. But the Warriors for me is the first step for anything to happen here.

Central Qld / Central Coast NSW

Heartland area with relatively small population base. Are their eyeballs already on Rugby League though? That's my concern with these - bringing a team/teams in here would idealistically be well supported at the grounds - but on TV I just cant see it bringing a new wave of eyeballs to the game that aren't already there.

Pacific Islands / PNG

Enormous Potential. Absolutely enormous. Yes - as a "farm" for playing talent but also to be the number 1 viewed sport across the pacific - (already is in PNG).


To consider the CURRENT ratings in these areas for RL isn't a true indicator of the merits of where a team should go. It's what growth opportunity they can present on top of anything they already may bring.

All of these regions can bring added viewership - revenue streams into the NRL. But of course with all this - The reality of expansion will be Cost versus Return. What will establishing sides in these areas incur in costs, versus what revenue can they bring.


It was once the NSWRL. (and BRL in Qld). We could have stayed as that - if we did where would the game be today.

They expanded instead. Some areas have worked great, some didn't last (for many reasons at the time). But the game has grown overall as a result of expansion. It only stands to reason to me that - at the appropriate time in the future (after rebuilding financially from the Covid Catastrophe) - the ONLY way to truly grow the sport of Rugby League is to expand. It's just a matter of where.

Easier said than done but..

Sustain >> Sydney, Canberra, Newcastle, Townsville, Melbourne.
Fix >>Auckland, Gold Coast
Capitalise >>Brisbane

Then Expand into one of (maybe progressively - all......)>>

Adelaide/Perth/New Zealand/Pacifika.


The alternative is either stagnation or regression.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

This. Absolutely couldn't agree with this more.

Put the kettle on and have a read on my opinion here if you like - there is (some!) relevance here..

Personally (while i never pretend to be the prime demographic of all league fans) - nowadays I will watch my team play, and maybe one or two other games per round. Of the non-dragons games, most matches couldn't interest me less, there are some I might turn on if i've got a spare few hours (which I'll join a game day thread to make it more interesting), and there's the very occasional one I'll make time for to watch.

My attention is more elsewhere these days - If i'm not busy with work, family etc - I've got so many more options to fill my eyeballs to entertain me. Social Media, Netflix, my frigging lphone... And I'm in my 40's... kids these days have been brought up on this stuff and so their attention as they grow older will be even more diverted than mine...

Would this average kid in 10, or 20 years' time - say a Dragons fan - with a Saturday afternoon to spare, rather watch

• Cronulla vs Manly
• Any movie or show they like on Netflix, Amazon...
• Facebook/Tik-tok/Snapchat/Instagram
• Xbox/Playstation
• Youtube
• their iphone 26
• Grot on pronhub..
• Whatever other devices/media/game platforms arise

So what does that have to do with expansion?

A set of eyeballs is the same whether they are in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra, Auckland, Perth, Adelaide, Townsville, Newcastle. Like a dollar coin - it doesn't matter who gave you the coin - a bloke at the shop or the queen - it's still worth the same. Eyeballs mean ratings, ratings equals sponsors, sponsors equals revenue. No matter where these eyeballs are located.

And so do we want the game to regress, stagnate, or grow?

Or in other words, where are the areas that the game can increase its viewership, against all its competitors?

Let's consider where the existing teams are firstly.

Sydney - Are new fans going to flock to the game? If so, from where and why?? While making up a vast number of current eyeballs on TV - my feeling is Sydney is highly unlikely to increase it's viewership and attendance. But it a huge pillar of the sport and needs to be protected.

• Growth opportunity - limited/minimal.

Brisbane - A 2nd team in brisbane will no doubt strengthen the 2nd pillar of fans in the league. And help stave off the AFL "invasion" - which is there as we speak, and has been for while, whether you like it or not.

• Growth opportunity - good/strong

Melbourne - Tough to grow. High performing team that is arguably the best performed over a sustained period of time since St George in the 50's & 60's. The key is maintaining this to maintain their presence. Not only do they have all the other platforms seeking their attention, Melbourne Storm are up against 9 other local, established teams who - apart from the odd occasion - will have a match that competes at the same time as a Storm Game. They are in the toughest market for Rugby League.

• Growth opportunity - limited/minimal.

Newcastle, Canberra, Townsville, - these areas may grow with their individual population growth. They are strong regional centres (GC needs to lift its game though) which give some credibility to making this the NRL (not NSWRL). But all are firmly established and a core part of the NATIONAL Rugby League. Rugby League Heartland areas which

• Growth Opportunity - limited.

Gold Coast. The perennial headache spot for Australian professional sporting teams. While a successful team will no doubt help - it's yet to prove it can sustain a successful sporting team in ANY Sport. I see a big potential here, it's

• Growth opportunity - good (despite poor history).

Auckland. Big population with an underperforming club of 25 years. Big population, Rugby Union is huge competitor - but is not as far removed from League as AFL is. But no doubt the club needs to establish sustained success on the field to truly capture new eyeballs - rather than rolling eyeballs as they have done for 25 year.

• Growth opportunity - good.

So if I'm anything like Nostradamus - if the NRL wishes to grow its game (rather than Stagnate or Regress) it's best opportunities lie with Brisbane, The Gold Coast and Auckland (NZ).

As for proposed expansion areas. No doubt ALL of these areas can bring new eyeballs to the sport - at the game or on TV.

Perth and Adelaide

Firstly - you're effectively starting at zero eyeballs of course so anything here will increase veiwers. But by how much?

Competition from AFL?

They will (and only ever will) compete with only 2 other local, established AFL teams. There is far more opportunity to play a Reds or Rams game when there is no AFL being played in town. So in comparison to the Melbourne Storm - I see there growth opportunity as good as Melbourne is, but possibly even greater (despite the lower population base of 2M and 1.4M respectively).

Both have also proven following in other sports as "1 team towns" and regularly draw high crowds to their games, while the local news/sport etc always promotes the fortunes of their teams. Both have history of RL teams in the SL era - underperformed sides in a brief period - but also exhibition matches which have been well attended.

Perth and Adelaide aren't as big as the East Coast Capitals - but they are bug enough to be significant while small enough to be highly communal.

New Zealand 2 (outside Auckland)

The opportunity is big should the Warriors get their act together. Which would help both teams in the long run. Competition further south is very heavy with Rugby Union. Others from NZ like Flippikat can comment more on the local "forecast" than I. But the Warriors for me is the first step for

Central Qld / Central Coast NSW

Heartland area with relatively small population base. Are their eyeballs already on Rugby League though? That's my concern with these - bringing a team/teams in here would idealistically be well supported at the grounds - but on TV I just cant see it bringing a new wave of eyeballs.

Pacific Islands / PNG

Enormous Potential. Absolutely enormous. Yes - as a "farm" for playing talent but also to be the number 1 viewed sport across the pacific - (already is in PNG).


To consider the CURRENT ratings in these areas for RL isn't a true indicator of the merits of where a team should go. It's what growth opportunity they can present on top of anything they already may bring.

All of these regions can bring added viewership - revenue streams into the NRL. But of course with all this - The reality of expansion will be Cost versus return. What will establishing sides in these areas incur in costs, versus what revenue can they bring.


It was once the NSWRL. (and BRL in Qld). We could have stayed as that - if we did where would the game be today.

They expanded instead. Some areas have worked great, some didn't last (for many reasons at the time). But the game has grown overall as a result of expansion. It only stands to reason to me that - at the appropriate time in the future (after rebuilding financially from the Covid Catastrophe) - the ONLY way to grow the sport of Rugby League is to expand. It's just a matter of where.

Easier said than done but..

Sustain >> Sydney, Canberra, Newcastle, Townsville, Melbourne.
Fix >>Auckland, Gold Coast
Capitalise >>Brisbane

Then Expand into one of (maybe progressively - all......)>>

Adelaide/Perth/New Zealand/Pacifika.


The alternative is either stagnation or regression.

You've converted me. The only point I differ on is new teams. I think in the long run, it would be safer to entice struggling Sydney teams that are perennial cellar dwellers without much hope of being successful where they are to relocate to Adelaide and Perth, under the provision their catchment in Sydney will be reserved for them and funded by the ARLC, with no junior from that ares being allowed to sign elsewhere unless their team have no interest in them. I will probably cop flak for that, but I see it as the best way to get quality juniors from Sydney to play for Adelaide and Perth.

Ex-pats in Adelaide and Perth will have a team to watch live and their kids will have some one to support and a reason to choose RL over fumbleball, which will strengthen the junior ranks over there.

 

[Perth Red]

Not sure what hbf rental is now but back in 2015 the WA govt was offering it to the Pirates bid for $80k a game. Your avg game day revenue on a 15k crowd and reasonable corporate box sales is around $400-500k
Sage’s comment wasn’t just the cost of ground rental, it was the avg crowd the Glory needed to break even each year given their limited level of corporate support for Aleague. like Cronulla who have also stated they need a 15k crowd avg to break even each year.

Pirates should have a realistic crowd target of 15k and membership of 20k for first few years. No reason that isnt achievable if club is well run and engages the RL community here.

if nrl was proactive they’d be negotiating with WA govt give to get NRLWA a decent hq and training base for future team and locking in plans to get hbf up to 25k capacity on the promise of an nrl club in year 20xx.

 

[flippikat]

I think this idea of a queue that people have is stupid. There shouldn't be a queue.

The team with the best bid should get the license, if that's Brisbane and/or Perth then so be it, but if a bid in NZ (or anywhere else for that matter) popped out of nowhere tomorrow with an amazing bid that is better than the others then we shouldn't pass them up because they aren't in the region we planned to expand to next.

That sort of attitude is why everyone is fighting over who should be the Brisbane club, when really none of the bids in Brisbane are up to snuff.

Ok, well maybe referring to it as a "queue" was perhaps not the best comparison.. but I still maintain that if club #17 is a 2nd Brisbane team, then #18 (to make for an even competition & avoid an awkward weekly bye) HAS to be Perth at this stage, and not just because it's the most developed bid outside of Brisbane 2, but because IMO it's a stronger case for 18th club than any NZ bid at this stage (bigger market, plus we already have a club in NZ timezone), or Adelaide (Perth offers a new timeslot that Adelaide doesn't), or either of Central Queensland or Central Coast (Again, bigger market.. why even consider more middling regional locations as expansion teams?? Big cities are KEY)

Brisbane2 and Perth are so far ahead of the pack.. I honestly can't see how other locations could dislodge them as the NRL's next two choices.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

You've converted me. The only point I differ on is new teams. I think in the long run, it would be safer to entice struggling Sydney teams that are perennial cellar dwellers without much hope of being successful where they are to relocate to Adelaide and Perth, under the provision their catchment in Sydney will be reserved for them and funded by the ARLC, with no junior from that ares being allowed to sign elsewhere unless their team have no interest in them. I will probably cop flak for that, but I see it as the best way to get quality juniors from Sydney to play for Adelaide and Perth.

Ex-pats in Adelaide and Perth will have a team to watch live and their kids will have some one to support and a reason to choose RL over fumbleball, which will strengthen the junior ranks over there.

Cheers mate. And i get your view too. Its the conundrum (to me) of sustaining Sydney while growing the game - into "pioneer" areas like Perth/Adelaide etc..

I'm a Sydney bloke who's now living in Adelaide and spent a lot of time in both Perth and NZ (without living there). By no means saying I'm the expert but I can just see how - with an effective, well-planned business strategy - any one of these areas could successfully host an NRL team in the future. Where that team (those teams?) comes from.. brand new or relocated... who knows.

 

[The Great Dane]

Ok, well maybe referring to it as a "queue" was perhaps not the best comparison.. but I still maintain that if club #17 is a 2nd Brisbane team, then #18 (to make for an even competition & avoid an awkward weekly bye) HAS to be Perth at this stage, and not just because it's the most developed bid outside of Brisbane 2, but because IMO it's a stronger case for 18th club than any NZ bid at this stage (bigger market, plus we already have a club in NZ timezone), or Adelaide (Perth offers a new timeslot that Adelaide doesn't), or either of Central Queensland or Central Coast (Again, bigger market.. why even consider more middling regional locations as expansion teams?? Big cities are KEY)

Brisbane2 and Perth are so far ahead of the pack.. I honestly can't see how other locations could dislodge them as the NRL's next two choices.

You are still making the assumption that current circumstances won't change, or rather that they are extremely unlikely to change, and then allowing that to inform your thinking.

There's no reason why things couldn't completely change tomorrow, and suddenly for whatever reasons, a bid from NZ (or anywhere else) presents it's self and is a better bid than all the other options. Sure that's probably pretty unlikely to happen, but it could happen, and we shouldn't ignore/downplay that potential or more importantly be unwilling to accept the change because it wasn't what we planned/wanted to happen.

The best bid should get the license, not the best bids from one or two predetermined places. If that means that Brisbane and Perth are the next two in then so be it, but if it means Christchurch and Timbuktu then so be that as well.

 

[Perth Red]

You are still making the assumption that current circumstances won't change, or rather that they are extremely unlikely to change, and then allowing that to inform your thinking.

There's no reason why things couldn't completely change tomorrow, and suddenly for whatever reasons, a bid from NZ (or anywhere else) presents it's self and is a better bid than all the other options. Sure that's probably pretty unlikely to happen, but it could happen, and we shouldn't ignore/downplay that potential or more importantly be unwilling to accept the change because it wasn't what we planned/wanted to happen.

The best bid should get the license, not the best bids from one or two predetermined places. If that means that Brisbane and Perth are the next two in then so be it, but if it means Christchurch and Timbuktu then so be that as well.

it really shouldnt be about the bids, it should be based on the strategic plan for the game and where the nrl wants to position itself over the next three decades. You could have the best backed bid in the world but if it’s in a city the nrl doesn’t deem to be strategically important then no way should they get a license. The game needs a long term vision, sadly something rugby league continually falls well short of.

 

[The Great Dane]

it really shouldnt be about the bids, it should be based on the strategic plan for the game and where the nrl wants to position itself over the next three decades. You could have the best backed bid in the world but if it’s in a city the nrl doesn’t deem to be strategically important then no way should they get a license. The game needs a long term vision, sadly something rugby league continually falls well short of.

Firstly, I think we both know that they don't have a strategic plan, at least not one with any depth anyway.

Secondly, strictly holding a strategic plan makes you rigid and unable to respond to unexpected opportunities. Sure have an outline of where you want to go and how you want to get there, but don't treat it as law.

If you've a got a multibillionaire offering you a deal you can't refuse for a license you take it no matter where he wants the team.

 

[greenBV4]

If you've a got a multibillionaire offering you a deal you can't refuse for a license you take it no matter where he wants the team.

So you would be happy for another Sydney team to be the next club? If it was backed by a multibillionair

I agree the best bid should get the nod, but the NRL needs to also have a plan for expansion into key areas

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

So you would be happy for another Sydney team to be the next club? If it was backed by a multibillionair

I agree the best bid should get the nod, but the NRL needs to also have a plan for expansion into key areas

Singo might rocket the jets back into the top flight ..

Not exactly a billionaire but hey, he’s Singo..

 

[Perth Red]

Firstly, I think we both know that they don't have a strategic plan, at least not one with any depth anyway.

Secondly, strictly holding a strategic plan makes you rigid and unable to respond to unexpected opportunities. Sure have an outline of where you want to go and how you want to get there, but don't treat it as law.

If you've a got a multibillionaire offering you a deal you can't refuse for a license you take it no matter where he wants the team.

didnt work so well for the knights or wolfpack. That’s why it can’t be about who has the most pokies or the biggest sugar daddy. Build on a strategic plan for where you want the game to be in thirty years time. Start at grass roots, regular nrl exposure fir fans, second tier funded entry and jnr development funding then open bids or that city to see which option is most viable, and back it up with a reasonable investment f7nd for first few years so the new club isnt left to flounder.

 

[The Great Dane]

So you would be happy for another Sydney team to be the next club? If it was backed by a multibillionair

I agree the best bid should get the nod, but the NRL needs to also have a plan for expansion into key areas

Depends on the deal that they are offering, but realistically if a billionaire wanted a club in Sydney they'd buy into one of the current ones, which happens more often then you'd realise BTW.

 

[The Great Dane]

didnt work so well for the knights or wolfpack. That’s why it can’t be about who has the most pokies or the biggest sugar daddy. Build on a strategic plan for where you want the game to be in thirty years time. Start at grass roots, regular nrl exposure fir fans, second tier funded entry and jnr development funding then open bids or that city to see which option is most viable, and back it up with a reasonable investment f7nd for first few years so the new club isnt left to flounder.

As things stand it looks like the NRL is probably going to expand to Redcliffe because they "have to have a Brisbane club next", but none of the Brisbane bids are up to scratch. So because of a rigid "plan" there's a good chance that NRL is going to end up with a team that doesn't fit it's needs when there's a perfectly good bid in Perth, that is just bad business. And passing up on another bid that might pop up out of nowhere and blow the others out of the water, because it's also not from Brisbane, is also just bad business.

Look nobody is saying don't have a rough outline of where you want to go or that you shouldn't dot your I's and cross your t's, just that you need to be flexible and able to adapt to change, and you can't do that if you've got your heart set on things.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Let's analyse AwFuL's foray in RL territory.

Sydney Swans were relocated from South Melbourne. They've been successful on and off the field, with a few hiccups along the way, but are now a powerhouse, thanks to assistance from AwFuL HQ.

Brisbane Bears were created from scratch because the financially struggling Fitzroy Lions didn't want to relocate. Bears failed on and off the field. Fitzroy Lions were forced to merge with Bears when AwFuL refused to bail them out. Finally Brisbane gained some success on and off the field, thanks to assistance from AwFuL HQ.

GC Suns and GWS Giants were created from scratch and have failed on and off field, despite assistance from AwFuL HQ.

Relocation = 100% success
Merger/Relocation = 100% success
New Teams in non-fumbleball cities = 0% success

RL created 3 teams from scratch in AwFuL territory.

The first two failed miserably, without assistance from ARL/NRL HQ.

The third was owned by News Ltd, who had a 50% stake in the game. They were able to assemble a strong squad from the remains of the Crushers, Reds and Mariners. News Ltd were able to use their ties with the Broncos to lure Lazarus to Melbourne after he was discarded by Bennett. Courtesy of News Ltd's money and power in the game, they were able to put together the best football department, scout the country for the best young talent and, get away with introducing the most dangerous and unethical tactics to win by any means necessary. Crowds remained low until a few years ago, despite never having a bad year since the early 00s, when their average dropped into the 9,000s.

My point?

New teams in alien territory cannot succeed unless they're given every advantage in the world. If the Storm were created before 1998 or after News Ltd exited the game then they would have failed even worse than the Reds and Rams, who weren't given any advantages.

Add Force and Rebels to the list of new teams in alien territory that have failed.

That's why I think the only hope for Adelaide and Perth is through relocation of struggling Sydney teams, aided by subsidies. The advantages Storm had in 1998 won't be there for Adelaide and Perth. The 16 NRL clubs will fight tooth and nail to prevent the ARLC from giving new teams in Adelaide and Perth any subsidies that would make them successful from day one.

Cam Smith said the only way for a Perth side to win over the public is by succeeding on field.

How can a new team in Perth put together a roster that will be successful from the start?

As soon as the ARLC announces the Pirates are in, if that day ever comes, the 16 clubs will lock up the best players in the game to long term contracts, just like they did in 1994. That will leave the Pirates with discards, such as young talent that aren't ready for the big time and aren't rated as potential stars, plodders and has-beens.

Relocated teams will be able to bring their rosters with them to Adelaide and Perth, giving them a chance to compete from day one.

 

[greenBV4]

Let's analyse AwFuL's foray in RL territory.

Sydney Swans were relocated from South Melbourne. They've been successful on and off the field, with a few hiccups along the way, but are now a powerhouse, thanks to assistance from AwFuL HQ.

Brisbane Bears were created from scratch because the financially struggling Fitzroy Lions didn't want to relocate. Bears failed on and off the field. Fitzroy Lions were forced to merge with Bears when AwFuL refused to bail them out. Finally Brisbane gained some success on and off the field, thanks to assistance from AwFuL HQ.

GC Suns and GWS Giants were created from scratch and have failed on and off field, despite assistance from AwFuL HQ.

Relocation = 100% success
Merger/Relocation = 100% success
New Teams in non-fumbleball cities = 0% success

RL created 3 teams from scratch in AwFuL territory.

The first two failed miserably, without assistance from ARL/NRL HQ.

The third was owned by News Ltd, who had a 50% stake in the game. They were able to assemble a strong squad from the remains of the Crushers, Reds and Mariners. News Ltd were able to use their ties with the Broncos to lure Lazarus to Melbourne after he was discarded by Bennett. Courtesy of News Ltd's money and power in the game, they were able to put together the best football department, scout the country for the best young talent and, get away with introducing the most dangerous and unethical tactics to win by any means necessary. Crowds remained low until a few years ago, despite never having a bad year since the early 00s, when their average dropped into the 9,000s.

My point?

New teams in alien territory cannot succeed unless they're given every advantage in the world. If the Storm were created before 1998 or after News Ltd exited the game then they would have failed even worse than the Reds and Rams, who weren't given any advantages.

Add Force and Rebels to the list of new teams in alien territory that have failed.

That's why I think the only hope for Adelaide and Perth is through relocation of struggling Sydney teams, aided by subsidies. The advantages Storm had in 1998 won't be there for Adelaide and Perth. The 16 NRL clubs will fight tooth and nail to prevent the ARLC from giving new teams in Adelaide and Perth any subsidies that would make them successful from day one.

Cam Smith said the only way for a Perth side to win over the public is by succeeding on field.

How can a new team in Perth put together a roster that will be successful from the start?

As soon as the ARLC announces the Pirates are in, if that day ever comes, the 16 clubs will lock up the best players in the game to long term contracts, just like they did in 1994. That will leave the Pirates with discards, such as young talent that aren't ready for the big time and aren't rated as potential stars, plodders and has-beens.

Relocated teams will be able to bring their rosters with them to Adelaide and Perth, giving them a chance to compete from day one.

You contradict yourself here
You use percentages to point out that in the AFL relocation has a much better chance of success, but also mention the 2 relocations had support from HQ

You then discard the storms success as a new club in the nrl BECAUSE they had support from HQ

Maybe it's not relocation vs new, but rather whatever the NRL is capable of supporting the club in its infancy (which it should be doing to actually grow the game in new territories)

 

[MugaB]

You contradict yourself here
You use percentages to point out that in the AFL relocation has a much better chance of success, but also mention the 2 relocations had support from HQ

You then discard the storms success as a new club in the nrl BECAUSE they had support from HQ

Maybe it's not relocation vs new, but rather whatever the NRL is capable of supporting the club in its infancy (which it should be doing to actually grow the game in new territories)

Theres no discarding their success, they've done amazingly well, especially in AFL centric territory, he is saying the differences between rams, reds and storm. Storm had help, the former had to survive on their own, not the whole reason they failed but you cannot discount that they were give a massive leg up in their infancy, along with St.Merge Dragons, basically no salary cap

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

You contradict yourself here
You use percentages to point out that in the AFL relocation has a much better chance of success, but also mention the 2 relocations had support from HQ

You then discard the storms success as a new club in the nrl BECAUSE they had support from HQ

Maybe it's not relocation vs new, but rather whatever the NRL is capable of supporting the club in its infancy (which it should be doing to actually grow the game in new territories)

I was pointing out that new teams in alien territory have a poor record, which cannot be denied.

Storm are the only team across RL, RU and fumbleball to have succeeded, and they were given more assistance than any other club in the country. They also had the fortune or being able to create a competitive roster that could challenge the big boys because they were created from the remains of 3 clubs who were just killed.

The situation that allowed the Storm to build a powerful roster from day one has never happened before and will never happen again. When three teams are culled at the same time their players have to go some where. The surviving clubs will not have enough money under the cap to pick up all of the best ones.

The unique situation in 1998 allowed Melbourne to do something that the Brisbane Bears, NQ Cowboys and SQ Crushers couldn't. I'll leave the Warriors out as they had a whole country to pick from. Broncos got to pick the guts out of the 9 clubs that played in the world's 2nd best competition.

Melbourne Storm also had the backing of the largest and most powerful media company in the land, who just acquired a 50% stake in the game months earlier. This situation will never repeat itself in NRL, RU or AwFuL.

AwFuL supports their expansion teams, but even they struggled. One had to be merged with a heartland club and provided assistance to succeed. NRL lets its expansion teams sink or swim. The only exception was the Storm, courtesy of their owners having a 50% stake in the game.

Can you honestly see the ARLC giving the Pirates the same support that AwFuL give the Swans, Bears/Lions, Suns and Giants?

I cannot see our game ever doing it.

 

[Perth Red]

Interestingly some of the old reds players reckoned with 3 -4 years they would have been up there with the decent talent they had plus some cracking youngsters that were brought across.
Don’t gws have a bigger membership base already after just a couple of years than most nrl clubs? Havent they had success on the field to some degree? if you want to look at comparisons you should look at the Titans who were brought in and left to fend for themselves and went broke, and the two afl clubs and Storm who were financially supported to be viable in short to medium term before they can stand on their own two feet.
relocation might be the ideal but it is NEVER going to happen so if you want the game to grow we need a plan B.

 

[Perth Red]

As things stand it looks like the NRL is probably going to expand to Redcliffe because they "have to have a Brisbane club next", but none of the Brisbane bids are up to scratch. So because of a rigid "plan" there's a good chance that NRL is going to end up with a team that doesn't fit it's needs when there's a perfectly good bid in Perth, that is just bad business. And passing up on another bid that might pop up out of nowhere and blow the others out of the water, because it's also not from Brisbane, is also just bad business.

Look nobody is saying don't have a rough outline of where you want to go or that you shouldn't dot your I's and cross your t's, just that you need to be flexible and able to adapt to change, and you can't do that if you've got your heart set on things.

not necessarily, at this point in smells very much of 2012 when you had 4 or 5 bids laying claim for their inclusion despite the fact the nrl hasn’t called for bids. We all know how that tuned out with nrl doing nothing for the next 8 years. IF they are serious about a new Brisbane club by whenever then they may, and should, officially put it out there and invite an open tender process for the Brisbane2 license. Who knows what may come from that. At moment dolphins very much remind me of the CC Bears bid, all bluster with memberships, assets, merch etc. didn’t work out so well for the Bears did it? I’d hope they would do the same if they ever got of their backsides and decided on a perth or Adelaide club for genuine expansion.