The importance of product availability

[Perth Red]

Precisely. The argument that "we don't have the depth to expand" or "existing clubs are weak, so we can't just add clubs" is the NRL's own argument.

I'd love to see the NRL add Perth, Brisbane 2, Adelaide & either Brisbane 3 or NZ 2.. take the comp out to 20 teams again, and test those theories.

If those arguments (remember, the NRL's arguments) pan-out, and Sydney can't sustain it's current suite of top tier teams in such an expanded competition, then there needs to be a serious look at that component of the competition.

Time to lay the foundation for that strategy was last TV deal. Instead of club grants going from $8.5 mill to $13mill overnight they should have gone to $10 mill with a $9mill Salary cap. The annual $48mill a year that would have saved the NRL should have been set aside for expansion over the next decade to get to 20 teams, and possibly a two conference comp. As usual NRL stuffed it up, the begging bowls came out and the money was flittered away. I mean with all that extra money clubs now get are they any bigger, more viable or more attractive than 5 years ago? Nope is the answer.

 

[Jim Rockford]

This is like the good old days of debating fundamentalist Christians lol.

At least you haven't said your evidence is that it says it in the bible I guess lol.

I really don't know what it is with you morons who laugh at their own posts. Just remember it was you who made the initial claim that no-one on the expansion side was advocating cutting or relocating teams. I told you that that was demonstrably false. As you made the initial claim it is totally on you to see if that evidence was there. If you're too lazy or scared to do so, don't try and turn it around on me.

 

[The Great Dane]

I really don't know what it is with you morons who laugh at their own posts. Just remember it was you who made the initial claim that no-one on the expansion side was advocating cutting or relocating teams. I told you that that was demonstrably false. As you made the initial claim it is totally on you to see if that evidence was there. If you're too lazy or scared to do so, don't try and turn it around on me.

Firstly, I have never, ever, claimed that nobody on the 'expansion side' advocates rationalisation. I mean I'm advocating rationalisation, so that's just BS lol.

What I actually said was that your claim that there are people whom argue that the only way for the NRL to expand is through rationalisation was false.

Secondly, no I didn't make the initial claim, you made it-

The issue is with the mental midgets who think the only way to do this is by cutting,merging or relocating Sydney teams.

And if it's so demonstrable I don't understand why you don't just demonstrate it then. Could it be that maybe it's not that demonstrable after all...

Look, how can I possibly address the posts that concern you if you don't show them to me? I don't know what they say or where they are, and if I picked a post at random that I think might fit what you are talking about then chances are that I wouldn't actually be addressing one that concerns you.
Basically the discussion is at a loggerheads unless you actually bring fourth what you wish to discuss instead of just alluding to it.

 

[The Great Dane]

For some reason this thread has become about rationalising Sydney. I'm not really sure why that is, because my OP wasn't really about that, but it got me thinking about how it pertains to the topic and the NRL more broadly.

So thinking about it I came to the conclusion that, at least for the foreseeable future, I can't see the NRL rationalising Sydney or pushing for a proper centralised model. They'll push closer to a centralised stadia model, but it'll still be halfarsed with teams regularly playing games in dilapidated shitboxes like Brookvale and Leichhardt in disparate parts of the city.

So taking those two points as truisms, and ignoring the obvious little things that aren't controversial, how can the NRL possibly increase product availability across Sydney as much as possible?

Well the only workable conclusion I could come up with was that they need to realign the clubs in Sydney so that they represent the population of the city as equally as possible, and particularly have direct representation in each major region of the city. In other words, they'd have to do something totally counterintuitive and double down on the suburban nature of the sport in Sydney.

This method definitely wouldn't be as effective as other methods, as it'd build inherent haves and have-nots, and also require clubs to shuffle around the city regularly to cover population growth and changing demographics (which I think would be very hard to get the clubs and fans to agree to), with a particular requirement of getting clubs to represent, at least, the region of North Sydney and Macarthur on a fulltime basis, with arguments to be made for Wollongong and the CC as well if we include them in the Sydney metro area as is happening more and more.
But if we take the two original points as truisms that is probably the best outcome that is left available to the NRL and sport.

However in saying all that, it should go without saying that, IMO, that set of circumstances would be nowhere near as good an outcome for the sport in Sydney as the other solutions.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

See that's where you are wrong. My side of the argument isn't based on "this city needs 9 teams".If you had been following the discourse you would have seen that both me and MugaB have no issue at all with expanding the comp. In fact we both welcome it. The issue is with the mental midgets who think the only way to do this is by cutting,merging or relocating Sydney teams. I have not seen one piece of credible evidence that supports this supposition. Their desire to reduce Sydneys teams is based on something other than purely expansion.

Where is the NRL going to find the players and money to fund 20+ teams?

Andrew Johns is probably the most intelligent and insightful analyst in our game, and he believes there's only enough talent to fill 12 teams. He knows the game better than anyone and helped revolutionise it in the 90s.

The last time we had 20 teams there was a huge divide between the haves and have nots. The expansion clubs were set up to fail by Quayle and Arrhurson. Cowboys and Reds were forced to fund the air travel and accommodation of all Sydney clubs when they travelled to Townsville and Perth. That's a bloody dumb way of running a business and forced them to sign with Super League just to survive.

The poorest and lowest drawing clubs in the league in the mid-90s were from Sydney, yet they were given all sorts of accommodations to survive while one-team cities were left to rot. If you think that's fair or smart then you should change your name to Jim Rocksforbrains.

 

[Jim Rockford]

Where is the NRL going to find the players and money to fund 20+ teams?

Andrew Johns is probably the most intelligent and insightful analyst in our game, and he believes there's only enough talent to fill 12 teams. He knows the game better than anyone and helped revolutionise it in the 90s.

You lose what little credibility you may have by calling Johns one of the most intelligent analysts in the game. Maybe compared to you he is intelligent, but compared to everyone else he is a gibbering moron.

 

[MugaB]

You lose what little credibility you may have by calling Johns one of the most intelligent analysts in the game. Maybe compared to you he is intelligent, but compared to everyone else he is a gibbering moron.

Yes this is the same immortal, that advocated for Mitchell Moses to be NSW halfback,.... i don't doubt that a cody walker and adam reynolds combo gives NSW a white wash... and yes johns is a moron off field, and a genius on field tactics and talent.
And to start any arguments with Andrew Johns said this so it must be the way... f**k me you're dumb

 

[Perth Red]

It doesnt answer the question of where does the NRL find the funds and players from for 20+ clubs? Players I think you can set things up differently to address that long term, and short trerm give salary cap relief to sign from outside existing NRL pool. Funding is the tricky one. At around $15mill a club a year plus any extra start up investment a club might require that is a significant chunk of money out of the NRL's coffers. Having said that pre covid year NRL made a $20mill surplus and Vlandys mates reckon he's cut $50mill of costs so in theory as long as the new TV revenue stacks up and NRL goes back to pre covid revenue levels it should have $75mill a year to play with??

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

You lose what little credibility you may have by calling Johns one of the most intelligent analysts in the game. Maybe compared to you he is intelligent, but compared to everyone else he is a gibbering moron.

Andrew Johns was the best ball-playing half-back I've ever seen play the game. He knew when to run, pass and kick. Every time he commentates he picks up on things that would go unnoticed by most people. Just because he doesn’t talk eloquently like Steve Jobs doesn't mean he doesn't have one of the sharpest RL brains in the business.

Let's not beat around the bush. The only reason you and @MugaB are attacking Johns is because he dared to say Sydney should only have four teams. That's all there is to it.

Being called dumb by @MugaB is the pot calling the kettle black. The bloke's spelling and grammar is all over the place. Hardly in a position to call anyone dumb. Besides, I didn't say Sydney should be rationalised because Andrew Johns said it, I just pointed out that NSW's greatest ever half-back believes it should be done. You cannot accuse him of having an anti-Sydney agenda. Play the ball, not the man.

 

[Jim Rockford]

Let's not beat around the bush. The only reason you and @MugaB are attacking Johns is because he dared to say Sydney should only have four teams. That's all there is to it.

No, the reason I think he is not very bright is because I listen to what he says. Just like I know you have a very low IQ due to the moronic garbage you post on here. That's really all there is to it.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

It doesnt answer the question of where does the NRL find the funds and players from for 20+ clubs? Players I think you can set things up differently to address that long term, and short trerm give salary cap relief to sign from outside existing NRL pool. Funding is the tricky one. At around $15mill a club a year plus any extra start up investment a club might require that is a significant chunk of money out of the NRL's coffers. Having said that pre covid year NRL made a $20mill surplus and Vlandys mates reckon he's cut $50mill of costs so in theory as long as the new TV revenue stacks up and NRL goes back to pre covid revenue levels it should have $75mill a year to play with??

The biggest impediment to expanding without rationalising is revenue.

The RLPA will never accept a pay-cut to accommodate another four teams, which is what will have to occur for it to happen because the broadcasters aren't going to pay an extra $52 million a year to keep the annual grant at $13 million. They want to pay less money, not more. The Foxtel and Sky Sports NZ side of the deal is compete, so you can rule them out of providing the necessary funds until 2027. No FTA network is going to add an extra $52 million per annum on top of what they're already paying.

Foxtel is struggling financially and so are the FTA networks. If we want more revenue then we're going to have to generate it from gate receipts, memberships and sponsorship arrangements.

Didn't Jim Rocksforbrains dismiss gate receipts as being unnecessary?

The reason our game didn't lose more money last year is because of the gate receipts generated from SOO 3. PVL actually mentioned this in a press conference. He also said we stand to lose a lot this year if we're forced to play at locked out venues.

 

[Perth Red]

Its interesting as the AFL reckon that their ninth game was worth $52mill a year extra in their last tv deals, despite the two clubs being brought in not being particulalry popular. If true or not its probably impossible to actually say. Also interestingly the new Sky NZ deal is alleged to be worth $64mill more ths time, largely due to a competitive market with a streaming service keen to by the the rights. We have no idea what the Fox deal is sadly IF the NRL produced its own content and could create that competitive market in the emerging streaming war then we might well see TV revenue go up, we are still significantly behind AFL in that regard.

Certainy big ticket events like Origin, Magic and All stars helps the NRL coffers and I can see more of similiar in the future. If we could get the Kangaroos as popular as the Wallabies that is also a largely untapped revenue source. Nines hasnt yet been used to reach its full potnetial from a revenue generation point of view either ( I still cant understand why they would schedule it so poorly in perth and lose all that ticket revenue to appease TV who dont actually pay for it!)

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Its interesting as the AFL reckon that their ninth game was worth $52mill a year extra in their last tv deals, despite the two clubs being brought in not being particulalry popular. If true or not its probably impossible to actually say. Also interestingly the new Sky NZ deal is alleged to be worth $64mill more ths time, largely due to a competitive market with a streaming service keen to by the the rights. We have no idea what the Fox deal is sadly IF the NRL produced its own content and could create that competitive market in the emerging streaming war then we might well see TV revenue go up, we are still significantly behind AFL in that regard.

Certainy big ticket events like Origin, Magic and All stars helps the NRL coffers and I can see more of similiar in the future. If we could get the Kangaroos as popular as the Wallabies that is also a largely untapped revenue source. Nines hasnt yet been used to reach its full potnetial from a revenue generation point of view either ( I still cant understand why they would schedule it so poorly in perth and lose all that ticket revenue to appease TV who dont actually pay for it!)

The networks would pay more for an extra AwFuL game as their competition has a national footprint, which means they can recoup more money from advertisers.

Our game should have added the 17th and 18th teams a decade ago when the game was flush with money. It chose to sit back and let the Sydney clubs dictate terms and now we're having to introduce just one team during an uncertain period. Our game is run by idiots.

 

[The Great Dane]

If we could get the Kangaroos as popular as the Wallabies that is also a largely untapped revenue source.

That will only happen if other international teams are regularly competitive with them and bring their own drawcards that attract interest, both things that are largely outside of the NRL's control.

If anything the NRL meddling in the affairs of other nations has made it less likely to happen, not more.

 

[Perth Red]

That will only happen if other international teams are regularly competitive with them and bring their own drawcards that attract interest, both things that are largely outside of the NRL's control.

If anything the NRL meddling in the affairs of other nations has made it less likely to happen, not more.

Well if they have cap concessions for signing outside the NRL we might see more english and french players in NRL which will only strengthen the Int comp. Seeing the great scenes when Tonga have played in NZ recently shows the potential if we got serious.

 

[Perth Red]

The networks would pay more for an extra AwFuL game as their competition has a national footprint, which means they can recoup more money from advertisers.

Our game should have added the 17th and 18th teams a decade ago when the game was flush with money. It chose to sit back and let the Sydney clubs dictate terms and now we're having to introduce just one team during an uncertain period. Our game is run by idiots.

True but we dont need to be spending $20-25mill a club like AFL has to expand. We could get 4 clubs in for the cost of the Suns and GWS to AFL! And if those clubs are increasing our national footprint we will catch up eventually.

 

[MugaB]

True but we dont need to be spending $20-25mill a club like AFL has to expand. We could get 4 clubs in for the cost of the Suns and GWS to AFL! And if those clubs are increasing our national footprint we will catch up eventually.

THIS!!! hence why its feasible to able to have 2 perth teams by 2030, and more 3 QLD teams too

 

[The Great Dane]

Well if they have cap concessions for signing outside the NRL we might see more english and french players in NRL which will only strengthen the Int comp. Seeing the great scenes when Tonga have played in NZ recently shows the potential if we got serious.

Every player from overseas that takes a spot in the NRL's pro pathway is a player taking a spot from an Aussie kid with the potential to become a great athlete. The best of those kids don't just stop being great athletes once they run out of opportunities in RL, they move onto other sports where there are opportunities and that has massive knock-on effects for the sport locally which are already being felt.

Obviously I'm not saying that the NRL shouldn't allow international players in the league, but I do think that they need to start paying more attention to the impact that developing a lot of international players is having on the sport locally, and maybe instead of trying to do everything within Australia look to try develop leagues overseas to a higher standard so that those players can be developed offshore with as little impact on the sport here as possible, though admittedly I don't know how you could feasibly go about that in most cases.

BTW, Tonga's current success isn't sustainable IMO, and would be considered a joke in many other sports (even in this sport, if players were qualifying for Aus or Eng on the same standard that they are for Tonga people would be outraged), but that is another conversation.

 

[Jim Rockford]

 

[siv]

Saints and Cronulla again... do we forget that there's a Wollongong region attached to one of these? Im not saying you're wrong, just pointing out that its a bad example,
Would be better to use Souths and Easts

But in that example there is a North Sydney and Central Coast region attached to one of these