The Case for Adelaide.....

[adamkungl]

Selfishly, I'd love for Roosters to have a serious crack at absorbing North Sydney and the Shore.
Demographically it's similar, geographically it's adjacent. Instead of taking 2 games up the coast I'd rather play them at NSO. Friday night after-work crowd would be killer.

 

[FlameThrower]

I should know better than to wade into this never ending debate, but I'll do it anyway.

This is a progressive rebuild idea and most people on here will probably hate it.

I think that the outer suburban teams in Sydney need to consider relocations as serious options.
To achieve national expansion, and to ease the financial pressure in Sydney are the 2nd and 3rd reasons. But the 1st and main reason is - I think there is a bigger, brighter future for those clubs as city clubs than there is as suburban clubs.

A key supporting pillar to this would be to restructure the NSW Cup to a better competition more representative of the state, with historical and regional clubs as feeders, rather than a half reserve grade half feeder with most clubs in western sydney and almost zero regional representation.

The NRL should financially incentivise the following moves:

1. Dragons -> Wollongong (full time). St George Dragons to play in NSW Cup at Kogarah.

2. Sea Eagles -> Central Coast. Manly-Warringah to play in NSW Cup at Brookvale. Norths junior boundaries to be officially removed and redrawn such that Sea Eagles have the upper north shore and the lower is merged with Roosters.

^ Rationale: As regional city teams, regions set for big growth, they will attract more government support and investment than in the suburbs of Sydney. Sydney is also set for big growth, yes. But the way investment is targeted means that the suburban regions will always get less attention than the CBD, Parramatta, and soon the new Western "Aerotropolis". see: Newcastle, Townsville.
Dedicated fans and sponsors are also an advantage. While Sydney has more potential fans and sponsors, they are also spoilt for choice, leaving clubs fighting tooth and nail every day. Regional city support gets clubs out of that fight.
There has been talk of upgrading some or all of the suburban stadiums in Sydney, but I'm both wildly sceptical it will actually happen and don't really agree with it as the best way forward for either the city or the NRL.

3. Sharks -> Adelaide. Cronulla-Sutherland to play in NSW Cup at Shark Park.
Cronulla are consistently at the bottom end of every financial measure you can look at. A fresh start in one of Australia's capitals, while retaining their junior region and historical local presence in NSW Cup, would position them comfortably to grow into a powerhouse on and off the field. As the OP in this thread mentioned, Adelaide has quality stadiums, loyal potential fans, huge financial potential. The brand is a good fit. The rivalry with Melbourne would go up another notch.

4. Wests Tigers -> Perth. Western Suburbs to play in NSW Cup at Campbeltown. Wests and Balmain to both run in Jersey Flegg, Ron Massey and Womens NSWRL.
Tigers represent an area that overlaps multiple other clubs without seeming sure of what they actually do want to represent themselves. A capital city move could let them move fully forward from the Balmain and Magpies days, and reposition themselves as one of the games top clubs. Perth is an opportunity begging to be taken. The leg work has already been done. The fanbase is wanting. Tigers have the most to gain, without even changing their branding. Roosters, Souths, Eels, and Bulldogs will always push them around financially in Sydney. With a parochial city the size of Brisbane behind them, they could be the next Storm or Broncos.

NSW Cup:
In addition to the above 4 clubs retaining their local historical teams, NSW Cup should be restructured so that feeders to NSW/ACT teams are either a) a historically significant former first grade club or b) a regional club.

Which leaves us with:
NRL - NSW Cup
Sydney Roosters - North Sydney Bears
Canterbury Bulldogs - Newtown Jets
South Sydney Rabbitohs - Albury/South West
Parramatta Eels - Tamworth/North West
Penrith Panthers - Bathurst/Central West
St George Illawarra Dragons - St George Dragons
Central Coast Sea Eagles - Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles
Adelaide Sharks - Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks
Wests Tigers - Western Suburbs Magpies
Canberra Raiders - Nowra/South Coast
Newcastle Knights - Port Macquarie/North Coast
Auckland Warriors - Auckland Warriors
Brisbane Broncos
Gold Coast Titans
Melbourne Storm
North QLD Cowboys
(and 2 obvious expansions in South Queensland and NZ South)


The 2 obvious criticisms i'm going to get:
1. Roosters should be relocated, no juniors no fans!
Aside from these likely criticisms being factually incorrect - the Roosters are the most successful club in Sydney on and off the field, and is the only club playing in the wealthy inner city. They're the major tenant in the new stadium.
Local juniors don't matter in professional sport, but if they did, the club has an arrangement with Norths and pathways through the Central Coast anyway.
If I own 9 stores, and want to expand my reach but have limited resources, I'm not shutting down my most successful franchise, i'm pruning the weaker ones.

2. You can't relocate Manly/etc or this part of Sydney won't have a team!
Not every part of town needs a first grade Rugby League team. And in particular reference to the north shore, the existing teams aren't doing a particularly good job of representing that area anyway. Leaving that area as official Norths junior region has been a failure. It should have been divided up between Manly and Roosters 15 years ago.
A restructured NSW Cup will ensure that every region of Sydney and NSW has a 1st or 2nd grade professional team.

Funny never hear a supporter suggest to relocate or merge their own team, but happy to slice and dice a swag of other teams.

 

[Perth Red]

Funny never hear a supporter suggest to relocate or merge their own team, but happy to slice and dice a swag of other teams.

Such is the expansion/relocation debate lol

 

[adamkungl]

Funny never hear a supporter suggest to relocate or merge their own team, but happy to slice and dice a swag of other teams.

Fair, mostly. There are a handful of people who actually do think their club should relocate, but they're few.

On one hand, it's not fair to always nominate other clubs. On the other hand, my club hasn't been on deaths door multiple times in the last 30 years, and is loaded, so is never going to realistically face this question. Is what it is.

 

[pennywisealfie]

Perth and Adelaide definitely need to be the priority over Brisbane 2.

Brisbane already has the Broncos. If you're in Brisbane and wanna watch footy, there's always tickets to Broncos games available. If you hate the Broncos that much, there's another team an hour down the road.

Perth and Adelaide have no presence, yet when they were in the league, they got respectable crowds when their teams were losing a lot.

We can't grow the game until we actually try to.

 

[magpie_man]

I wonder if the NRL is playing a bit of a game of chicken with the AFL when it comes to relocation.
The AFL is maxed-out (many who are far more knowledgeable than me on the subject would say 'overstretched') when it comes to the total number of teams relative to the quality of the playing talent. Any further expansion is likely going to have to come at the expense of the glut of Melbourne-based clubs. Being the lone professional league of its type in the world and only having a very limited (albeit, growing) and specific talent pool to draw from, their hands are tied - unless they're willing to run the very-real risk of diluting their onfield product even further.
The NRL, by contrast, doesn't have the same kind of limitations. They have barely scraped the surface of the playing talent available in PNG and the Pacific Islands; there just needs to be better coaching and development pathways and infrastructure put in place to nurture the talent through to the professional level (which appears to be happening à la the Kaiviti Silktails and Phil Gould's new role in NZ).
Then there is the ESL pond to pull ready-made professional players from.
The main constraint for NRL expansion is financial; they simply don't have the seemingly unlimited resources that the AFL does to build and maintain an outpost franchise, hence the Brisbane II fixation.
A major factor, for mine, is the reality that forced relocation generates a lot of resentment amongst the supporter base, and not just those specific to the relocated team. Word is, anecdotally, that around 1/3 of Fitzroy's supporter base were lost to the game when the AFL shifted them to Brisbane. It's probably a PR hit that the NRL can't afford to initiate. However, if the AFL start relocating clubs first, it might essentially break the ground for the NRL to follow suit and make it more palatable for the supporter base...

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Someones starting to see the light

not sure if Adelaide is ever really called "south coast" though

I have no faith in the ARLC in regards to expansion. It's why I am so pessimistic about any expansion into non-RL areas. The ARLC and 16 clubs don't look 30 years ahead to see the benefits of Adelaide and Perth being an alternative to the next generation of kids. They just see 20-30 years of throwing hundreds of millions of dollars funding teams in new markets that will struggle to gain a foothold in an AFL stronghold.

Teams in Adelaide and Perth would be of huge benefit if they're propped up with the right marketing and development at the grassroots level, but the ARLC have not mastered that art and are not showing any signs they ever intend to. The old NSWRL, ARL and then NRL made a mess of Brisbane and Gold Coast, which THE ARLC is yet to fix. Going on their track record, I'd hate to see what mess they leave behind in Perth and Adelaide. If they could fix Brisbane, and bring in more money with it, then they would have the resources to fund expansion into the southern states.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Perth and Adelaide definitely need to be the priority over Brisbane 2.

Brisbane already has the Broncos. If you're in Brisbane and wanna watch footy, there's always tickets to Broncos games available. If you hate the Broncos that much, there's another team an hour down the road.

Perth and Adelaide have no presence, yet when they were in the league, they got respectable crowds when their teams were losing a lot.

We can't grow the game until we actually try to.

When it comes to Adelaide and Perth, the NRL should be thinking relocation, not expansion.

Brisbane 2 and 3 have benefits that Adelaide and Perth cannot bring to the table. The derbies they will provide for the Broncos and Titans will be good for attendances and ratings. Throw Cowboys in there with the north vs south rivalry and it's great for RL in Queensland. You cannot under estimate the parochialism of Queenslanders either, which is reflected in the ratings. Queenslanders watch the Broncos, Cowboys, Titans and Storm. The other teams rate poorly up here. Ch9 are aware of this and want Brisbane 2 for this reason. David Gyngell said when Broncos play they get 100 cents return on the dollar, for everyone else, 40 cents. The bulk of the game's money comes from the broadcasters and they will have a say over who comes in.

I live in Logan and hate the Broncos and couldn't care less about the Titans as I am not from the Gold Coast. Brisbane 2 will be great for me if it is done properly.

 

[MugaB]

I should know better than to wade into this never ending debate, but I'll do it anyway.

This is a progressive rebuild idea and most people on here will probably hate it.

I think that the outer suburban teams in Sydney need to consider relocations as serious options.
To achieve national expansion, and to ease the financial pressure in Sydney are the 2nd and 3rd reasons. But the 1st and main reason is - I think there is a bigger, brighter future for those clubs as city clubs than there is as suburban clubs.

A key supporting pillar to this would be to restructure the NSW Cup to a better competition more representative of the state, with historical and regional clubs as feeders, rather than a half reserve grade half feeder with most clubs in western sydney and almost zero regional representation.

The NRL should financially incentivise the following moves:

1. Dragons -> Wollongong (full time). St George Dragons to play in NSW Cup at Kogarah.

2. Sea Eagles -> Central Coast. Manly-Warringah to play in NSW Cup at Brookvale. Norths junior boundaries to be officially removed and redrawn such that Sea Eagles have the upper north shore and the lower is merged with Roosters.

^ Rationale: As regional city teams, regions set for big growth, they will attract more government support and investment than in the suburbs of Sydney. Sydney is also set for big growth, yes. But the way investment is targeted means that the suburban regions will always get less attention than the CBD, Parramatta, and soon the new Western "Aerotropolis". see: Newcastle, Townsville.
Dedicated fans and sponsors are also an advantage. While Sydney has more potential fans and sponsors, they are also spoilt for choice, leaving clubs fighting tooth and nail every day. Regional city support gets clubs out of that fight.
There has been talk of upgrading some or all of the suburban stadiums in Sydney, but I'm both wildly sceptical it will actually happen and don't really agree with it as the best way forward for either the city or the NRL.

3. Sharks -> Adelaide. Cronulla-Sutherland to play in NSW Cup at Shark Park.
Cronulla are consistently at the bottom end of every financial measure you can look at. A fresh start in one of Australia's capitals, while retaining their junior region and historical local presence in NSW Cup, would position them comfortably to grow into a powerhouse on and off the field. As the OP in this thread mentioned, Adelaide has quality stadiums, loyal potential fans, huge financial potential. The brand is a good fit. The rivalry with Melbourne would go up another notch.

4. Wests Tigers -> Perth. Western Suburbs to play in NSW Cup at Campbeltown. Wests and Balmain to both run in Jersey Flegg, Ron Massey and Womens NSWRL.
Tigers represent an area that overlaps multiple other clubs without seeming sure of what they actually do want to represent themselves. A capital city move could let them move fully forward from the Balmain and Magpies days, and reposition themselves as one of the games top clubs. Perth is an opportunity begging to be taken. The leg work has already been done. The fanbase is wanting. Tigers have the most to gain, without even changing their branding. Roosters, Souths, Eels, and Bulldogs will always push them around financially in Sydney. With a parochial city the size of Brisbane behind them, they could be the next Storm or Broncos.

NSW Cup:
In addition to the above 4 clubs retaining their local historical teams, NSW Cup should be restructured so that feeders to NSW/ACT teams are either a) a historically significant former first grade club or b) a regional club.

Which leaves us with:
NRL - NSW Cup
Sydney Roosters - North Sydney Bears
Canterbury Bulldogs - Newtown Jets
South Sydney Rabbitohs - Albury/South West
Parramatta Eels - Tamworth/North West
Penrith Panthers - Bathurst/Central West
St George Illawarra Dragons - St George Dragons
Central Coast Sea Eagles - Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles
Adelaide Sharks - Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks
Wests Tigers - Western Suburbs Magpies
Canberra Raiders - Nowra/South Coast
Newcastle Knights - Port Macquarie/North Coast
Auckland Warriors - Auckland Warriors
Brisbane Broncos
Gold Coast Titans
Melbourne Storm
North QLD Cowboys
(and 2 obvious expansions in South Queensland and NZ South)


The 2 obvious criticisms i'm going to get:
1. Roosters should be relocated, no juniors no fans!
Aside from these likely criticisms being factually incorrect - the Roosters are the most successful club in Sydney on and off the field, and is the only club playing in the wealthy inner city. They're the major tenant in the new stadium.
Local juniors don't matter in professional sport, but if they did, the club has an arrangement with Norths and pathways through the Central Coast anyway.
If I own 9 stores, and want to expand my reach but have limited resources, I'm not shutting down my most successful franchise, i'm pruning the weaker ones.

2. You can't relocate Manly/etc or this part of Sydney won't have a team!
Not every part of town needs a first grade Rugby League team. And in particular reference to the north shore, the existing teams aren't doing a particularly good job of representing that area anyway. Leaving that area as official Norths junior region has been a failure. It should have been divided up between Manly and Roosters 15 years ago.
A restructured NSW Cup will ensure that every region of Sydney and NSW has a 1st or 2nd grade professional team.

Sorry but you're right Roosters should be relocated, as well as they do on/off the field they can do this successfully in Adelaide no doubt... sharks can take over their very small foot print in sydney and south sydney can play in their actually catchment at the SFS, and no one would care if they weren't in sydney, if anything we could see a revival of the bears since we'd be a northern club short.
And to suggest cronulla and wests should move on, would create another vacuum in sydney similar to the bears in the northern suburbs, and balmain to carlingford with no real club in the area.
But there's no vacuum in sydney if the Roosters just picked up and left, no one but uncle nick would even really care.
Its annoying that wests, cronulla and manly are pigeonholed in relocations debates when the glaring and most obvious club who proclaims itself Sydney, is the one who should depart, and Adelaide would embrace them much more than sydney would ever will, hell they even share the same exact colors of the previously disbanded Rams.
Giving a successful franchise a chance to flourish in a new market would be the perfect example of relocation that would entice another team to take a stab at Perth, after seeing the roosters succeed, no one wants to relocate period, but if a team that is "successful" as roosters are can do it in South Australia, then others will follow.

Because no one will miss them, no one will march the street for them either

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

I should know better than to wade into this never ending debate, but I'll do it anyway.

This is a progressive rebuild idea and most people on here will probably hate it.

I think that the outer suburban teams in Sydney need to consider relocations as serious options.
To achieve national expansion, and to ease the financial pressure in Sydney are the 2nd and 3rd reasons. But the 1st and main reason is - I think there is a bigger, brighter future for those clubs as city clubs than there is as suburban clubs.

A key supporting pillar to this would be to restructure the NSW Cup to a better competition more representative of the state, with historical and regional clubs as feeders, rather than a half reserve grade half feeder with most clubs in western sydney and almost zero regional representation.

The NRL should financially incentivise the following moves:

1. Dragons -> Wollongong (full time). St George Dragons to play in NSW Cup at Kogarah.

2. Sea Eagles -> Central Coast. Manly-Warringah to play in NSW Cup at Brookvale. Norths junior boundaries to be officially removed and redrawn such that Sea Eagles have the upper north shore and the lower is merged with Roosters.

^ Rationale: As regional city teams, regions set for big growth, they will attract more government support and investment than in the suburbs of Sydney. Sydney is also set for big growth, yes. But the way investment is targeted means that the suburban regions will always get less attention than the CBD, Parramatta, and soon the new Western "Aerotropolis". see: Newcastle, Townsville.
Dedicated fans and sponsors are also an advantage. While Sydney has more potential fans and sponsors, they are also spoilt for choice, leaving clubs fighting tooth and nail every day. Regional city support gets clubs out of that fight.
There has been talk of upgrading some or all of the suburban stadiums in Sydney, but I'm both wildly sceptical it will actually happen and don't really agree with it as the best way forward for either the city or the NRL.

3. Sharks -> Adelaide. Cronulla-Sutherland to play in NSW Cup at Shark Park.
Cronulla are consistently at the bottom end of every financial measure you can look at. A fresh start in one of Australia's capitals, while retaining their junior region and historical local presence in NSW Cup, would position them comfortably to grow into a powerhouse on and off the field. As the OP in this thread mentioned, Adelaide has quality stadiums, loyal potential fans, huge financial potential. The brand is a good fit. The rivalry with Melbourne would go up another notch.

4. Wests Tigers -> Perth. Western Suburbs to play in NSW Cup at Campbeltown. Wests and Balmain to both run in Jersey Flegg, Ron Massey and Womens NSWRL.
Tigers represent an area that overlaps multiple other clubs without seeming sure of what they actually do want to represent themselves. A capital city move could let them move fully forward from the Balmain and Magpies days, and reposition themselves as one of the games top clubs. Perth is an opportunity begging to be taken. The leg work has already been done. The fanbase is wanting. Tigers have the most to gain, without even changing their branding. Roosters, Souths, Eels, and Bulldogs will always push them around financially in Sydney. With a parochial city the size of Brisbane behind them, they could be the next Storm or Broncos.

NSW Cup:
In addition to the above 4 clubs retaining their local historical teams, NSW Cup should be restructured so that feeders to NSW/ACT teams are either a) a historically significant former first grade club or b) a regional club.

Which leaves us with:
NRL - NSW Cup
Sydney Roosters - North Sydney Bears
Canterbury Bulldogs - Newtown Jets
South Sydney Rabbitohs - Albury/South West
Parramatta Eels - Tamworth/North West
Penrith Panthers - Bathurst/Central West
St George Illawarra Dragons - St George Dragons
Central Coast Sea Eagles - Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles
Adelaide Sharks - Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks
Wests Tigers - Western Suburbs Magpies
Canberra Raiders - Nowra/South Coast
Newcastle Knights - Port Macquarie/North Coast
Auckland Warriors - Auckland Warriors
Brisbane Broncos
Gold Coast Titans
Melbourne Storm
North QLD Cowboys
(and 2 obvious expansions in South Queensland and NZ South)


The 2 obvious criticisms i'm going to get:
1. Roosters should be relocated, no juniors no fans!
Aside from these likely criticisms being factually incorrect - the Roosters are the most successful club in Sydney on and off the field, and is the only club playing in the wealthy inner city. They're the major tenant in the new stadium.
Local juniors don't matter in professional sport, but if they did, the club has an arrangement with Norths and pathways through the Central Coast anyway.
If I own 9 stores, and want to expand my reach but have limited resources, I'm not shutting down my most successful franchise, i'm pruning the weaker ones.

2. You can't relocate Manly/etc or this part of Sydney won't have a team!
Not every part of town needs a first grade Rugby League team. And in particular reference to the north shore, the existing teams aren't doing a particularly good job of representing that area anyway. Leaving that area as official Norths junior region has been a failure. It should have been divided up between Manly and Roosters 15 years ago.
A restructured NSW Cup will ensure that every region of Sydney and NSW has a 1st or 2nd grade professional team.

Welcome to the thread!

Appreciate your ideas.

 

[The Great Dane]

Funny never hear a supporter suggest to relocate or merge their own team, but happy to slice and dice a swag of other teams.

For decades now almost every club CEO or major administrator from Sydney has agreed that Sydney needs to be rationalised. . . Just not their club.

 

[The Great Dane]

I wonder if the NRL is playing a bit of a game of chicken with the AFL when it comes to relocation.
The AFL is maxed-out (many who are far more knowledgeable than me on the subject would say 'overstretched') when it comes to the total number of teams relative to the quality of the playing talent. Any further expansion is likely going to have to come at the expense of the glut of Melbourne-based clubs. Being the lone professional league of its type in the world and only having a very limited (albeit, growing) and specific talent pool to draw from, their hands are tied - unless they're willing to run the very-real risk of diluting their onfield product even further.
The NRL, by contrast, doesn't have the same kind of limitations. They have barely scraped the surface of the playing talent available in PNG and the Pacific Islands; there just needs to be better coaching and development pathways and infrastructure put in place to nurture the talent through to the professional level (which appears to be happening à la the Kaiviti Silktails and Phil Gould's new role in NZ).
Then there is the ESL pond to pull ready-made professional players from.
The main constraint for NRL expansion is financial; they simply don't have the seemingly unlimited resources that the AFL does to build and maintain an outpost franchise, hence the Brisbane II fixation.

The NRL had the money, they just pissed it up the wall.

Besides even now they have more than enough to expand in places like Brisbane and Perth where they have partners willing to help set up the club and take on the financial burden.

A major factor, for mine, is the reality that forced relocation generates a lot of resentment amongst the supporter base, and not just those specific to the relocated team. Word is, anecdotally, that around 1/3 of Fitzroy's supporter base were lost to the game when the AFL shifted them to Brisbane. It's probably a PR hit that the NRL can't afford to initiate. However, if the AFL start relocating clubs first, it might essentially break the ground for the NRL to follow suit and make it more palatable for the supporter base...

Even if all of the Fitzroy fans left (and maybe they did, who knows, who really cares) the Brisbane Lions now are bigger then Fitzroy ever were, and on top of that they're in a strategic location where they are significantly more valuable to the league then they were in Melbourne.

I'm not a big fan of relocation, but this 'you'll lose fans' argument totally misses the point.

No matter what you do, even if it's simply through natural attrition, you will constantly lose fans. It's inevitable. So it's not about how you lose fans, or trying to prevent that, and it never has been; it's about how you replace them.

Fitzroy, through relocating to Brisbane, has more than replaced the fans they lost, and are in a better position then they could ever hope for if they had stayed in Melbourne.

 

[pennywisealfie]

When it comes to Adelaide and Perth, the NRL should be thinking relocation, not expansion.

Brisbane 2 and 3 have benefits that Adelaide and Perth cannot bring to the table. The derbies they will provide for the Broncos and Titans will be good for attendances and ratings. Throw Cowboys in there with the north vs south rivalry and it's great for RL in Queensland. You cannot under estimate the parochialism of Queenslanders either, which is reflected in the ratings. Queenslanders watch the Broncos, Cowboys, Titans and Storm. The other teams rate poorly up here. Ch9 are aware of this and want Brisbane 2 for this reason. David Gyngell said when Broncos play they get 100 cents return on the dollar, for everyone else, 40 cents. The bulk of the game's money comes from the broadcasters and they will have a say over who comes in.

I live in Logan and hate the Broncos and couldn't care less about the Titans as I am not from the Gold Coast. Brisbane 2 will be great for me if it is done properly.

If you've turned your nose up at Brisbane and then the Gold Coast, then why is Brisbane 2 going to all of a sudden sort out your issues on who to support?

It's nice to have rivalries, but very little people will care about Brisbane 2. There aren't that many fans "up for grabs". You either go for Brisbane or go for some other team. Fans of other teams might likely say that Brisbane 2 would be their second team, but does that equate to attendance every 2nd week? I don't think so.

If Brisbane still suck when Brisbane 2 come in, they might get some early flip flop fans through the gates, especially if they start out winning. But if they suck, or Brisbane get good again, those fans will be Brisbane fans again.

Get on board with the Brisbane Broncos mate. Good time to get on board, you can say you were there through the hard times.

 

[mongoose]

If you've turned your nose up at Brisbane and then the Gold Coast, then why is Brisbane 2 going to all of a sudden sort out your issues on who to support?

It's nice to have rivalries, but very little people will care about Brisbane 2. There aren't that many fans "up for grabs". You either go for Brisbane or go for some other team. Fans of other teams might likely say that Brisbane 2 would be their second team, but does that equate to attendance every 2nd week? I don't think so.

If Brisbane still suck when Brisbane 2 come in, they might get some early flip flop fans through the gates, especially if they start out winning. But if they suck, or Brisbane get good again, those fans will be Brisbane fans again.

Get on board with the Brisbane Broncos mate. Good time to get on board, you can say you were there through the hard times.

Yeah i've made this argument before. People have this false idea that Brisbane has all these dormant League followers who are going to jump ship to a new team when they come along. I think it's very wishful thinking. In saying that I am still all for a second Brisbane team. The city should have at least 1 NRL game a week and the Broncos should have local inner city derby and someone who will push them to be better. You can see the Broncos have maybe got a little too complacent and comfortable with their position which has resulted in the disastrous on field position they are in right now.

 

[adamkungl]

One thing that I've changed my mind on over the years is that we can have expansion without rationalisation.
I used to be on the train that we should keep all 9 Sydney teams exactly as they are, and have 2 or 4 more expansion teams, and everyone would be happy.

However, I no longer think that is the case.
You can either have national expansion, or keep all 9 Sydney clubs - not both.
Successful expansion will lead to a wider gap between the top and bottom that will inevitably lead to 1-2 clubs falling over anyway.

Why?
Lets look at a 20 team model (Perth, Adelaide, South QLD, NZ South) which I think covers the necessary spots.

1 - Resources. There clearly isn't the will to stretch financial or player resources for 20 teams. I don't necessary agree with this, it's a matter of priorities and budgeting, but it's the number 1 argument and roadblock against expansion. 18 maybe, but 20 is a world away.

2 - The 'Haves' v the 'Have Nots'. Lets assume we've expanded to 20, and the new clubs have established themselves and become successful. Look a little further down the track.
You'll have half the clubs, the big city clubs, playing out of modern stadiums with 30k+ capacity, and if the game plays its cards right, those clubs will be averaging well over 20k. The rest will be capped at local park capacities. The sponsorships on the table for city clubs will be on a different level. T
I think the big, wealthy clubs will be towards the top of the ladder more often than not - they already are. But instead of Storm, Broncos, Roosters, it might be those + 3 or 4 more.

Right now, we have a small handful of clubs that are consistently performing above the rest. In this future, it will be more pronounced, and a bigger gap between the top 6-8 teams and the rest. Eventually someone won't be able to keep up, ala Newtown and Wests in the 1980s. We'll be right back where we started - having the same debate about rationalisation in Sydney that has been going on for decades.
But instead of being able to choose their fate, there will be nowhere left to go. More damage to the game, which could have been avoided by being proactive and making tough choices earlier.


Relocation should be looked at as growing a clubs footprint, not abandoning tradition.
A club that plays NRL first grade out of a new city, while keeping its traditional junior base and NSW Cup, all with the same colours and mascot, has expanded.
If it's a choice between this, and being the smallest fish in the pond forever until you get eaten and run out of air, I'd choose a new pond.

 

[Perth Red]

One thing that I've changed my mind on over the years is that we can have expansion without rationalisation.
I used to be on the train that we should keep all 9 Sydney teams exactly as they are, and have 2 or 4 more expansion teams, and everyone would be happy.

However, I no longer think that is the case.
You can either have national expansion, or keep all 9 Sydney clubs - not both.
Successful expansion will lead to a wider gap between the top and bottom that will inevitably lead to 1-2 clubs falling over anyway.

Why?
Lets look at a 20 team model (Perth, Adelaide, South QLD, NZ South) which I think covers the necessary spots.

1 - Resources. There clearly isn't the will to stretch financial or player resources for 20 teams. I don't necessary agree with this, it's a matter of priorities and budgeting, but it's the number 1 argument and roadblock against expansion. 18 maybe, but 20 is a world away.

2 - The 'Haves' v the 'Have Nots'. Lets assume we've expanded to 20, and the new clubs have established themselves and become successful. Look a little further down the track.
You'll have half the clubs, the big city clubs, playing out of modern stadiums with 30k+ capacity, and if the game plays its cards right, those clubs will be averaging well over 20k. The rest will be capped at local park capacities. The sponsorships on the table for city clubs will be on a different level. T
I think the big, wealthy clubs will be towards the top of the ladder more often than not - they already are. But instead of Storm, Broncos, Roosters, it might be those + 3 or 4 more.

Right now, we have a small handful of clubs that are consistently performing above the rest. In this future, it will be more pronounced, and a bigger gap between the top 6-8 teams and the rest. Eventually someone won't be able to keep up, ala Newtown and Wests in the 1980s. We'll be right back where we started - having the same debate about rationalisation in Sydney that has been going on for decades.
But instead of being able to choose their fate, there will be nowhere left to go. More damage to the game, which could have been avoided by being proactive and making tough choices earlier.


Relocation should be looked at as growing a clubs footprint, not abandoning tradition.
A club that plays NRL first grade out of a new city, while keeping its traditional junior base and NSW Cup, all with the same colours and mascot, has expanded.
If it's a choice between this, and being the smallest fish in the pond forever until you get eaten and run out of air, I'd choose a new pond.

We're a small sport, small clubs will be ok as long as the sport stays small. After 40 years following the game I see no signs we will ever be anything other than a small sport.

 

[mongoose]

We're a small sport, small clubs will be ok as long as the sport stays small. After 40 years following the game I see no signs we will ever be anything other than a small sport.

The problem is the NRL is not truly independent. It's broadcast partners, big money stakeholders and clubs want to keep the status quo which is a relatively cheaply run suburban NSW/QLD comp with a massive hyped up State of Origin every year. Sadly the clubs are happy with this status quo as well and so it will continue until theres a big shakeup....

 

[Perth Red]

The problem is the NRL is not truly independent. It's broadcast partners, big money stakeholders and clubs want to keep the status quo which is a relatively cheaply run suburban NSW/QLD comp with a massive hyped up State of Origin every year. Sadly the clubs are happy with this status quo as well and so it will continue until theres a big shakeup....

Wheres the motivation for a big shake up though? Sadly it will likely come from the dominance that AFL will have in a few decades time, but like Union have now found with NRL, it will be too late by then.

 

[adamkungl]

We're a small sport, small clubs will be ok as long as the sport stays small. After 40 years following the game I see no signs we will ever be anything other than a small sport.

Well thats it isn't it.

I want the sport to grow.
Ultimately as much as I'd like to keep everyone happy, real growth is fundamentally incompatible with staying the same.
So if I'm forced to choose 1 - expansion is my choice, at the cost of some tradition.
The reality is, actual growth will probably never happen, and RL will continue to be mediumly successful in the same small handful of places, until it eventually isn't, and is swallowed up by a shrinking world.

 

[MugaB]

One thing that I've changed my mind on over the years is that we can have expansion without rationalisation.
I used to be on the train that we should keep all 9 Sydney teams exactly as they are, and have 2 or 4 more expansion teams, and everyone would be happy.

However, I no longer think that is the case.
You can either have national expansion, or keep all 9 Sydney clubs - not both.
Successful expansion will lead to a wider gap between the top and bottom that will inevitably lead to 1-2 clubs falling over anyway.

Why?
Lets look at a 20 team model (Perth, Adelaide, South QLD, NZ South) which I think covers the necessary spots.

1 - Resources. There clearly isn't the will to stretch financial or player resources for 20 teams. I don't necessary agree with this, it's a matter of priorities and budgeting, but it's the number 1 argument and roadblock against expansion. 18 maybe, but 20 is a world away.

2 - The 'Haves' v the 'Have Nots'. Lets assume we've expanded to 20, and the new clubs have established themselves and become successful. Look a little further down the track.
You'll have half the clubs, the big city clubs, playing out of modern stadiums with 30k+ capacity, and if the game plays its cards right, those clubs will be averaging well over 20k. The rest will be capped at local park capacities. The sponsorships on the table for city clubs will be on a different level. T
I think the big, wealthy clubs will be towards the top of the ladder more often than not - they already are. But instead of Storm, Broncos, Roosters, it might be those + 3 or 4 more.

Right now, we have a small handful of clubs that are consistently performing above the rest. In this future, it will be more pronounced, and a bigger gap between the top 6-8 teams and the rest. Eventually someone won't be able to keep up, ala Newtown and Wests in the 1980s. We'll be right back where we started - having the same debate about rationalisation in Sydney that has been going on for decades.
But instead of being able to choose their fate, there will be nowhere left to go. More damage to the game, which could have been avoided by being proactive and making tough choices earlier.


Relocation should be looked at as growing a clubs footprint, not abandoning tradition.
A club that plays NRL first grade out of a new city, while keeping its traditional junior base and NSW Cup, all with the same colours and mascot, has expanded.
If it's a choice between this, and being the smallest fish in the pond forever until you get eaten and run out of air, I'd choose a new pond.

Agreed, roosters expanding in Adelaide is a superb idea adam, your junior club the north sydney bears can continue in the NSW cup, and your tradition stays alive in SA from 1908 to now, all great ideas, its exactly what ive been saying for years, expanding to Adelaide is Rugby leagues first great step into proper expansion, and for it to work it will need a strong club with a great system, much like the Melbourne storm has created... imagine if souths also left Sydney to become the Perth Rabbitohs, Adelaide Vs Perth rivalry would be epic, and again Sharks and Dogs could very well grow their foot print in sydney, if both "sydneys" were moved on