The importance of product availability

[Jamberoo]

Though I agree with what you are saying, I don't think it is fair to say that RL is in denial about it.

The vast majority of the people that matter have understood what's been going on for decades now, they just either haven't had the power or the will to do anything about it.
You should also never underestimate the power of self interest in RL. There are people in RL who would effectively kill it as a commercial product if they thought it would benefit them or their team in some meaningful way.

Trying to hold what they already have would just put them into a war of attrition that they'd inevitably lose as other sports got bigger.

They have to be bold and fight back, and that means being entrepreneurial and taking risks, like decoupling the NRLW from the NRL so you have two products to sell instead of one and have a bunch more pro-teams to spread across the country to help sell the game.

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist lol.

I don't have faith that RL people can detach themselves from their emotions enough to make relocations work. They'd focus too much on the past instead of the future and turn their new potential market off as a result. I can just imagine the Daily Telegraph running annual articles of rumours of X returning to Sydney and the damage they'd do.

I'm much more in favour of clubs being relegated and their license being given to new entities. That way the club that gets the boot still exists and operates more or less how it always has, and it creates the opportunity to build the lower tiers into legitimate alternate products that can be sold in their own right (see Newtown's growing success in the NSW Cup). And trust me as a Bears fan, standing alone in the NSW cup is way better then the merger was...

Yes but clubs can’t be removed or relegated - see Souths.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Yes but clubs can’t be removed or relegated - see Souths.

Untrue. News had it overturned but chose to retain Souths.
August 2003 in Adelaide, High Court.

 

[Jim Rockford]

It's being rational, not selfish.

I also think that it's going to be pretty hard for you to argue that this side of the argument is being selfish when you are the one arguing that your city needs 9 teams when others don't even have one.

I'm also capable of feeling empathy for the amputee whilst still understanding that the amputation was necessary.

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.

 

[Jim Rockford]

Untrue. News had it overturned but chose to retain Souths.
August 2003 in Adelaide, High Court.

They did so to protect their bottom line as they had massively underestimated the public backlash against what they had done.

 

[Perth Red]

Yes but clubs can’t be removed or relegated - see Souths.

Licenses are still time limited. NRL has actually been the one pushing for clubs to accept them permanently (so they dont have the negotiating chip of a breakaway) but clubs keep refusing. In theory if they wanted to the NRL could not reoffer a license (though I suspect there is caveats around this that the clubs have demanded).

 

[The Great Dane]

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.

Though you will find people whom argue that the NRL should rationalise instead of expand (depending on the circumstances that might even describe me), you will never find any rational person whom argues that the NRL must rationalise to expand.

Once you peel away the fluff and get to the core arguments your side is always reduced to arguing that you can't rationalise Sydney because 'if we lose a club we'll lose that clubs region', 'the AFL/soccer/RU/whatever will takeover', etc, etc, or some mix of all of the above.

In other word your side is in effect arguing that Sydney needs it's 9 teams otherwise RL will fail.

 

[Jim Rockford]

In other word your side is in effect arguing that Sydney needs it's 9 teams otherwise RL will fail.

No, once again "my" side is arguing that expansion is not dependent on cutting/merging/relocating Sydney teams. Also, good to see you acknowledge that Perth Red and his two gormless sidekicks aren't rational as they definitely believe that rationalisation is essential for expansion.

 

[Perth Red]

The reasons, be them legit or not, for rationalising Sydney to expand and grow the game that have been put forward over the years:
1. NRL can only afford so many mouths to feed so to add new mouths requires reduction of existing
2. Growth should be built on strong foundations and at the moment the foundations are weak as there are too many clubs and not enough fans and sponsors to have 9 vibrant clubs in the games main city
3. NRL doesn't have confidence to invest in new areas as it is worried about having to bail out existing clubs due to their financial instability
4. There are only so many RL fans in Sydney and with 9 clubs they are spread so thin that attendances, and the way the game presents on tv, are much lower than where they should be
5. Most clubs only exist due to pokie dens and if they had to be run as professional self sustaining sports clubs they couldnt survive.
6. There's not enough talent to add more clubs so only way to do it without diluting the quaity is to replace existing.

On the flip side the arguments for non culling go like this:
1. Get rid of a club and you'll lose all those fans from the game
2. Get rid of a club and AFL will take over
3. The NRL is built on the history of Sydney RL and it should not be compromised
4. there are no guarantees a new club somewhere else will bring more than an existing one
5. It will create a lot of bad feeling generally in RL supporters and damage the games brand and fan engagement

It would be nice to see the clubs and NRL work together to see if they can grow and become stronger as we are, in order to build on a strong foundation and not lose anyone. But it seems clubs are reluctant to do so and are just happy to take 70% of their revenue from the NRL and pokie dens. And NRL seem incompetent to lead it. Dave Smith was the only administrator who could see what was needed when he told clubs you need to get your crowds up to 20k and the way is through central stadiums. Alas he was soon sacrificed on the alter of NRL tribalism.

 

[The Great Dane]

No, once again "my" side is arguing that expansion is not dependent on cutting/merging/relocating Sydney teams. Also, good to see you acknowledge that Perth Red and his two gormless sidekicks aren't rational as they definitely believe that rationalisation is essential for expansion.

Well your side is wasting it's time then, because nobody is holding the opposing position except the strawmen you have created.

 

[Jim Rockford]

Well your side is wasting it's time then, because nobody is holding the opposing position except the strawmen you have created.

It's clear you haven't read many of Perth Red or GROTDs posts. Go away and get up to speed and then we'll talk.

 

[Perth Red]

Literally every CEO and Chair since Gallop first started to raise the idea of expansion in 2011 has used the weakness of existing clubs and/or player talent depth as a key factor why not to expand.

2011:

NRL CEO David Gallop says expansion is unlikely to happen until 2015 to give current clubs stability

NRL expansion on hold until 2015

www.foxsports.com.au

2013:
“The commission very clearly has said that we won’t consider growth until the end of 2014. There’s a lot of work to do in terms of just making sure we’re operating off a strong base, so we’re concentrating on that (until then).

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

No Cookies

www.dailytelegraph.com.au

 

[The Great Dane]

It's clear you haven't read many of Perth Red or GROTDs posts. Go away and get up to speed and then we'll talk.

Or could it be that you are getting emotional and not taking the time to actually understand the arguments that are being presented before you?

 

[Jim Rockford]

Or could it be that you are getting emotional and not taking the time to actually understand the arguments that are being presented before you?

Nope, like I said go back and read the many.many posts Perth Red and GROTD have made saying teams must be cut or relocated for expansion to happen. They are all there in black and white, it's just a case if you want to read them and see how wrong you are.

 

[The Great Dane]

Nope, like I said go back and read the many.many posts Perth Red and GROTD have made saying teams must be cut or relocated for expansion to happen. They are all there in black and white, it's just a case if you want to read them and see how wrong you are.

Go ahead and show me an example then.

 

[Jim Rockford]

I shouldn't have to hold your hand. You're a big boy you can find them.

 

[Perth Red]

 

[The Great Dane]

I shouldn't have to hold your hand. You're a big boy you can find them.

You made the claim it's your job to support it, not mine.

It's called the burden of evidence.

 

[Jim Rockford]

No it's called you being too scared to be proven wrong.

 

[flippikat]

Literally every CEO and Chair since Gallop first started to raise the idea of expansion in 2011 has used the weakness of existing clubs and/or player talent depth as a key factor why not to expand.

2011:

NRL CEO David Gallop says expansion is unlikely to happen until 2015 to give current clubs stability

NRL expansion on hold until 2015

www.foxsports.com.au

2013:
“The commission very clearly has said that we won’t consider growth until the end of 2014. There’s a lot of work to do in terms of just making sure we’re operating off a strong base, so we’re concentrating on that (until then).

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

No Cookies

www.dailytelegraph.com.au

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.

 

[The Great Dane]

No it's called you being too scared to be proven wrong.

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.