The West coast Sharks or Western Rabbits?

[carcharias]

This would have been a fairly legit shit stir a while ago.
However, since the development got approved it is
a fairly useless argument.

Sharks are here to stay .

They are just about the only club being pro active in
the way they are planning for the future outside of rugby league itself.

 

[Ausguy]

blow up the pokies and drag them away...

 

[Diesel]

If clubs do not relocate on their own eventuality the ARLC will be forced to relocate, merge or remove them, but it will take more then 10-15 years, a more realistic time frame would be 25-35 years.

Also I agree with your opinion, the Saints definitely have a larger time frame before they will be in danger. If it looks like Sydney teams might be forced to relocate, merge or worst of all fold the dragons can simply move to Wollongong full time and they will be safe.

I agree that teams will feel the pinch of the corporate $ in the next decade or so but how would the ARLC force a merger, relocation or other? Would they cut their annual grant and if so would the club take them to court like Souths did in the early 2000's or Western Suburbs did in '84?

The Commission will have to do something but how will it be implemented?

 

[The Great Dane]

I agree that teams will feel the pinch of the corporate $ in the next decade or so but how would the ARLC force a merger, relocation or other? Would they cut their annual grant and if so would the club take them to court like Souths did in the early 2000's or Western Suburbs did in '84?

The Commission will have to do something but how will it be implemented?

I have thought about this quite a bit recently and I really have no idea how they would do it without pissing everybody off.

The only way that I can come up with that would curb the pain a little (not enough, but a little), would be to get all the clubs in Sydney to come to a meeting sometime within the next 5-10 years and basically say to them that eventually the time will come when we have to rationalize Sydney again, if you meet these criteria, X amount of members, financial stability, etc. etc. by the time that we have to rationalize, it will be more likely that we will not make you merge, force you to relocate to a city of our choosing or worst case scenario revoke your license, even if you do meet the criteria we still cannot promise you that you will not be merged, forced to relocate to a city of our choosing or have your license revoked, but if you relocate to one of these cites on your own we can promise you that you will not be rationalized and that we will help to arrange a deal with one of the clubs still in Sydney so that you can play some away games in Sydney at your historical home ground.

Then once again when it gets closer to the time that they have to rationalize, preferably within 5 years of the rationalization, get all the clubs in Sydney that have little or no chance of not being merged or having there license revoked (pretty much all of them) and bluntly tell them if they do not relocate to one of these cities then they will be merged or have their license revoked.

The trick would be to get as many of them as possible to relocate on there own, but that is much easier said then done. I'm not sure of which cities would be on the list of preferred relocation spots, but one thing I am certain of is that the list would have to be very large and would include any city in Australasia (and maybe some in Asia) that is theoretically viable. Most of these cities would not even get looked at by the teams, but there would be a few that would look very tempting to all of them, that is what you want. Hopefully that would start a chain reaction, where some of them start falling over each other trying to establish themselves in these cities (the ones that are really preferred, for example at the moment they would include Perth, Adelaide, Wellington and Christchurch) and eventually relocating to them, wile leaving the other clubs that were unsuccessful in their attempt to relocate, saying no way will we relocate to Jakarta (example of a city that is a bluff) to remain in Sydney with little or no change to where they are situated or who they represent, except some minor changes to names so that the represent larger areas, for example If Manly are one of the teams that end up staying there name would change to Northern Sydney Sea Eagles.

If successful this plan would avoid the ARLC having to look like the bad guy as much as possible, because they would not be forced to merge or relocate many teams, and would make the clubs rationalize themselves.

Now I realize that there are many holes in my plan, but as I said at the start of my post " I really have no idea how they would do it without pissing everybody off".

With the whole court thing and contracts and all that, I am sure there will be some stubborn clubs that will take that route to try and stay where they are, and I really do not know enough about the contracts that they have with the NRL to give anybody a definitive answer on how to avoid it, but my suggestion would be to make it clear to the clubs that they (the ARLC) do not like doing this, but have to for the good of the game, and then stock up on the best lawyers in the world to deter them (the clubs) form taking that action.

Don't get me wrong I don't want to see any team be merged or fold, and I am not death riding anybody or favoring anybody, but eventually there will come a time when the NRL has to rationalize Sydney again. Hopefully we will get the opportunity to see how the AFL handles it and be able to learn from their mistakes.

 

[Diesel]

You have thought that through and giving Sydney teams a deadline of a decade or so instead of 1-2 seasons as they did after the SL debacle would be easier for some fans to adjust or take.

There has to be some teams immune from a move say the Dragons and Tigers as they have already merged whereas Dragons would base most (not all) home games at the Gong and the Tigers mainly based at MacArthur and both teams take their top 3-4 drawing games to ANZ or SFS. Penrith if they get things in order would also be another possible team to be immune and they'd need to focus on getting good crowds to their venue, something they seem to struggle with.

 

[The Great Dane]

You have thought that through and giving Sydney teams a deadline of a decade or so instead of 1-2 seasons as they did after the SL debacle would be easier for some fans to adjust or take.

There has to be some teams immune from a move say the Dragons and Tigers as they have already merged whereas Dragons would base most (not all) home games at the Gong and the Tigers mainly based at MacArthur and both teams take their top 3-4 drawing games to ANZ or SFS. Penrith if they get things in order would also be another possible team to be immune and they'd need to focus on getting good crowds to their venue, something they seem to struggle with.

There has to be some teams immune from a move say the Dragons and Tigers as they have already merged

This is when it starts to get tricky and hard for the fans, because the only fair way to rationalize Sydney is to make no team immune, no matter what there circumstances are. Admittedly when the rationalization starts it will be easier for the Dragons to avoid it by simply completely moving to Wollongong.

Penrith if they get things in order would also be another possible team to be immune and they'd need to focus on getting good crowds to their venue, something they seem to struggle with

When it comes to whether or not Penrith (or for that matter any Sydney club) is immune it all depends on whether or not Sydney is completely rationalized or partly rationalized, personally I think that a complete rationalization is more sensible, it would be a waste of time to only move/merge/remove two or three teams then wait a decade or two and start the process all over again, I think in this situation it is better to rip the band aid off then to pull it off slowly.

Another thing to consider when it comes to immunity is how Sydney will be rationalized, in other words how many teams will be left in Sydney and where will they represent, I think the best (and easiest) way to go would be four teams representing north, south, east and west, but there are many ways you could cut it.

With all that in mind the answer your question of do I think Penrith is immune is no they are not immune (sorry if your a Panthers fan, I don't mean to hurt your feelings), in fact I think in most scenarios they are one of the teams that relocate/merge (preferably relocate), the worst case scenario for them is if the ARLC go's with a complete rationalization and my favorite distribution of teams (north, south, east and west) because they would have to go up against the Bulldogs and Eels for the western spot and both of them are better run and much more supported. Once again sorry Panthers fans, I mean no offense and I am just being brutally honest, something that is necessary when talking about this subject.

 

[Perth Red]

Will never, and should never, happen. Only difficulty is the game can't use it's money to expand as it needs it to keep existing clubs afloat. Hopefully if clubs can sort themselves out then we will see expansion but not at the expense of existing clubs. No fan should ever face losing their club at the hands of the arlc. If a club is mismanaged and goes under fair enough, that is its own fault. Ideally the game would be big enough to sustain a 21 team comp with every team playing each other once for a 20 round comp. an expanded world club comp plus bigger int calendar to fill the rest of the year. The existing 16 plus Perth, Wellington, CQ, brisbane2 and png would be awsome

 

[Diesel]

I agree no club should be lost however Sydney may not be able to substain 9 full time clubs in the future. Up until the Sharks development got approved how could they compete with the Broncos for a national sponsorship? You could ask that same question about several other Sydney based clubs too

 

[The Great Dane]

Will never, and should never, happen.Only difficulty is the game can't use it's money to expand as it needs it to keep existing clubs afloat. Hopefully if clubs can sort themselves out then we will see expansion but not at the expense of existing clubs. No fan should ever face losing their club at the hands of the arlc. If a club is mismanaged and goes under fair enough, that is its own fault. Ideally the game would be big enough to sustain a 21 team comp with every team playing each other once for a 20 round comp. an expanded world club comp plus bigger int calendar to fill the rest of the year. The existing 16 plus Perth, Wellington, CQ, brisbane2 and PNG would be awesome

The problem with all of that is, with our new found wealth the ARLC can bailout clubs in danger of going under and unless there is 0% growth of the game in Cities such as Adelaide and Christchurch (two examples of cities not on your list that could theoretically sustain teams) eventually the profit to be made in one of those cities will out weigh the profit we are making in Sydney from many of the clubs.

No fan should ever face losing their club at the hands of the ARLC.

I completely a agree with that, and that is also the soul reason why I suggested my plan earlier (I would suggest that you read it in its entirety, it is two posts ago). Tricking (most of) them into relocating themselves means that (hopefully) no fan would loose their club at the hands of the ARLC in the form of a merger or of the revoking of their license. Surely a relocation is better then a merger or having there license revoked?

The existing 16 plus Perth, Wellington, CQ, brisbane2 and PNG would be awesome

Further more on this subject, How is it fair to RL fans in places like the the a fore mentioned Adelaide and Christchurch plus many others, that if/when it is possible, we maintain nine teams in Sydney instead of expanding to their cites, when we would theoretically be making more money in their cities then we would/are making off some clubs in Sydney now.

The point is we claim to be the National Rugby League and eventually we will have to stop being east coast centric and start to truly expand the borders of the game in Australia, and unfortunately that will mean eventually we will have to rationalize Sydney again.

 

[Diesel]

Christchurch is a little difficult due to the 2011 earthquake where a lot a time and infrastructure is being put back to rebuilding the city and may have put back any bid 10-20 years. Rugby League Park had money sunk into it by the govt and RU for the Crusaders the AB's andvCanterbury RU so the stadium is right to go, so they'd be better off bringing 2-3 games a season to the city or take those games from a Wellington side.

 

[dangerousdave]

Wellington can not support an NRL side!

A southern side splitting games between wellington, christchurch and dunedin is the only way to do it

 

[Diesel]

How would a team be able to have 3 home cities? I see a 9-3 split with Welly/Chch but throwing in Dunedin just makes it a little more messier. Would a South Island team work or is that just too unsustainable?

 

[WayneBennett]

Mariners and Rams have a place

 

[The Great Dane]

Christchurch is a little difficult due to the 2011 earthquake where a lot a time and infrastructure is being put back to rebuilding the city and may have put back any bid 10-20 years. Rugby League Park had money sunk into it by the govt and RU for the Crusaders the AB's andvCanterbury RU so the stadium is right to go, so they'd be better off bringing 2-3 games a season to the city or take those games from a Wellington side.

25-35 years will have passed By the time that it becomes necessary to rationalize Sydney again, so that is nothing to worry about.

 

[Perth Red]

I did read your plan Dane, I just don't agree with it! No Sydney team is going to relocate or merge is the reality. Penrith, manly and cronulla are arguably the 3 weakest Sydney clubs but none of them are in financial positions that will see them being forced to do anything drastic. Manly are probably most at risk due to the state of their ground but even then they could just move to a sydney stadium if need be. Sydney will not be rationalised without blood being let and personally I do not consider that a positive for the game. AFL has managed to add 8 interstate teams to its original vfl, we have culled the bears and merged 4 into 2 already in nsw, we should be able to add another 4-5 teams over the next 30 years now we have some decent income coming into the game at long last.

 

[Ausguy]

Mariners and Rams have a place

Yep Seattle and st Louis.

 

[Diesel]

Mariners and Rams have a place

In history

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I did read your plan Dane, I just don't agree with it! No Sydney team is going to relocate or merge is the reality. Penrith, manly and cronulla are arguably the 3 weakest Sydney clubs but none of them are in financial positions that will see them being forced to do anything drastic. Manly are probably most at risk due to the state of their ground but even then they could just move to a sydney stadium if need be. Sydney will not be rationalised without blood being let and personally I do not consider that a positive for the game. AFL has managed to add 8 interstate teams to its original vfl, we have culled the bears and merged 4 into 2 already in nsw, we should be able to add another 4-5 teams over the next 30 years now we have some decent income coming into the game at long last.

The AFL watched Super League war from a distance and refused to get any blood on its hands when it so desperately wanted at least four Melbourne teams gone (or relocated).

The AFL tried to shoe-horn North Melbourne in to Western Sydney, then Canberra and dangled the carrots to move to the Gold Coast. It was refused. Now they will wither on the vine.

The AFL will let Melbourne Demons die too.

Both Melbourne and North Melbourne are doing everything they can off the field to ensure they survive. It's a bit like Souths and Cronulla in the NRL. Everyone has had them in the cross hairs but now both clubs have sat back, reviewed their operations and made changes. Meanwhile, other Sydney/Melbourne clubs are now about to hit that hurdle.

They've expanded in to Western Sydney and Gold Coast, rightly or wrongly, and yet the Tassie heartland cries long and loud that they have been over looked, serviced by the occasional visit by the Hawks each season, with no team of their own.

I for one would like to see less teams in the Sydney market. Sure I could point to reasons to kill any of the Sydney clubs, my own included. But I don't want to see blood. The last thing we need is more lost fans. I for one would like to see Perth, Brisbane 2, Central Coast, Central Qld in the comp with a long term plan to get in to Adelaide and PNG. I also don't want to see soulless expansion for expansion sake. If Perth, or any other region wants a team, they should show it (and that goes for all the other teams in Sydney and the NRL).

Economic realities as they are, and looking at RL history, we're due a dead club in the next 10 years. However, if the ARLC/NRL and the clubs are smart, the NRL can become stronger, wider and better than ever.

It's funny to rib posters on here about relocating the Chooks to Adelaide, or LOL@Souffs or culling the Eels.

But I wouldn't wish a defunct club on my worst enemy.

 

[Diesel]

I can't see it happening but could you imagine the AFL faithful wailing if one or two teams got the chop?

 

[The Great Dane]

I did read your plan Dane, I just don't agree with it! No Sydney team is going to relocate or merge is the reality. Penrith, manly and cronulla are arguably the 3 weakest Sydney clubs but none of them are in financial positions that will see them being forced to do anything drastic. Manly are probably most at risk due to the state of their ground but even then they could just move to a sydney stadium if need be. Sydney will not be rationalized without blood being let and personally I do not consider that a positive for the game. AFL has managed to add 8 interstate teams to its original vfl, we have culled the bears and merged 4 into 2 already in nsw, we should be able to add another 4-5 teams over the next 30 years now we have some decent income coming into the game at long last.

I think there has been a misunderstanding, I don't want it happen and I don't like it, but I recognize that eventually it will have to happen!

Kind of like death, I don't want to die but I know that it is inevitable, and that for life to prosper there must be death.

I did read your plan Dane, I just don't agree with it!

I don't really like it either, but it is the best that I can come up with that will have the least affect on the fans (which is still a huge affect on them).

I know from first hand experience how diehard fans react when they lose their clubs. Before the Raiders were accepted into the NSWRL my mother was a bears fan and my farther a Rabbitohs fan, even though at the time that both clubs were murdered both my parents would have identified as Raiders fans it still hit them very, very hard because they were still obsessive fans of there respective clubs.

Let me just say that when the Rabbits got accepted back into the league that there was a rather large party at my parents house and everyone and anyone was invited, seriously there were tones of people I had never seen before or since at that party!

My mother would give anything to bring the Bears back, even if it meant that the Raiders had to die, and you can trust me when I say, that though it would not be perfect she would give anything for the Bears to have relocated instead of merged.

That is the soul reason why I push relocation instead of mergers (or other worse outcomes), because another Rationalization of Sydney will eventually happen (not for quite a long time but it will come) and in my experience relocation is easier on the fans.

AFL has managed to add 8 interstate teams to its original vfl

As Mad Hatter said the AFL has already tried to palm off a couple of their teams in Melbourne, and I reckon that within the next 10-20 years they will get more aggressive about it, or as he suggests will just watch them die.