Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Well over two years you have more players available off contract than in one year. So instead of trying to build two full NRL quality squads (50 players) off the talent available in one off season, you only have to build one squad of 25 players each of year. Chances are both squads end up more competitive and therefore do less short term damage to the quality of the comp than if they both come in together.
Hughes was overrated if anything. He'd go a whole set and not mention blokes' names because he'd be waffling on about something else or listening to other comments and then suddenly he'd start mentioning names, but then he would ONLY mention names. So it would go "Smith...Jones...Brown...Bloggs" or if it was a lead-up to a try "Smith...Jones...Brown...Bloggs...unbelievable!" even when it wasn't really. His radio show is atrocious too.
It doesnt help when you treat your best/most consistant rating show like a piece of shit,at the same time you are promoting/talking up the opposition sport that is on another network.
The NRL has built its reputation on providing spectators, television viewers, media partners and sponsors with a high quality, highly competitive competition. None of those stakeholders, especially the media partners and sponsors paying the big bucks, want "one season where quality is bit diluted". It damages the reputation that the NRL has worked hard to create and it undermines the value of those big money investments (possibly in excess of the money banked by expanding quickly). Expansion will be carefully managed to minimise or avoid any dilution in the quality of the comp, even for only a few seasons. And I'm sure that staggering the introduction of new teams will very much be under consideration to help ensure that.
