This day 25 years ago........

[Perth Red]

16 is probably the ideal club number for a Comp the size of nrl in a country the size of Australia/nz, but we are missing 4, potentially 5 if you include gosford, clubs for a truly National + NZ Comp. That means 4/5 less Sydney clubs in reality, arl knew, Superleague knew it, arlc know it.

 

[Perth Tiger]

16 is probably the ideal club number for a Comp the size of nrl in a country the size of Australia/nz, but we are missing 4, potentially 5 if you include gosford, clubs for a truly National + NZ Comp. That means 4/5 less Sydney clubs in reality, arl knew, Superleague knew it, arlc know it.

16 is probably ideal but up to 20 would be sustainable with the right management, particularly if union and the a league struggle and shed more clubs.

Just think if we were a monoculture sporting nation like most of the world aus would probably have a 2 or 3 tier promotion regulation model.

 

[madunit]

Point taken and accepted. The overriding conclusion though is that this thinking was flawed. Arko's comment confirms a flawed strategy. And looking at what is transpiring: a shit fight and underwhelming progress is occuring. Northern Sydney being a valid example of dilution and what it does to widely etablished supporter bases.

In hindsight, and this coming from someone who lost their club to a merger, I think the idea was absolutely correct. I think Sydney has the maximum number of clubs it will ever need right now, so I see no reason why any clubs should be axed or merged ever again (unless they become insolvent that is)

The lack of expansion is to ensure it's done properly and that new clubs come in and stay in. I dare say there's hesitations given the basket case that the Titans became in such a short period of time.

The last time the comp rushed into expansion was 1995 and only half the teams survived.

It expanded to Adelaide and Perth and died after just a few seasons, lord knows what damage that did to the reputation and image of the game in those areas after years of careful promotion.

Rapid expansion is doomed to fail, in any sport. Just be patient and let the NRL learn some lessons and actually ensure they don't f**k up again.

 

[The Great Dane]

16 is probably the ideal club number for a Comp the size of nrl in a country the size of Australia/nz, but we are missing 4, potentially 5 if you include gosford, clubs for a truly National + NZ Comp. That means 4/5 less Sydney clubs in reality, arl knew, Superleague knew it, arlc know it.

To have a fair crack at the NZ market alone the NRL will need at least 3-4 clubs in the country...

 

[The Great Dane]

In hindsight, and this coming from someone who lost their club to a merger, I think the idea was absolutely correct. I think Sydney has the maximum number of clubs it will ever need right now, so I see no reason why any clubs should be axed or merged ever again (unless they become insolvent that is)

Except that you know, the market is massively over-saturated and that's stunting the growth of all the clubs in it, which is having the knock-on effect of meaning that heaps of resources have to be dumped into them through skyrocketing grants to keep them all alive and as stable as possible (not a problem that is restricted to Sydney, but it's amplified in Sydney), that has the extra knock-on effect of stunting the growth of the sport (not just the NRL) in this country as massive amounts of money are flushed down a black hole in propping up a handful of elite clubs instead of being invested into growth.

But yeah apart from that and a handful of other issues, everything is hunky-dory.

The lack of expansion is to ensure it's done properly and that new clubs come in and stay in. I dare say there's hesitations given the basket case that the Titans became in such a short period of time.

The lack of expansion is because until very recently the NRL has by and large totally neglected the subject since about 09, and that neglect probably did have a bit to do with the Titans, a club that would never and probably should never have existed except for the NRL pandering to the Sydney market by not kicking Souths straight back out of the competition once the dodgy restraint of trade ruling was overturned I might add, but it's had just as much to do with all the other clubs that can't get their shit together and a bunch of other stuff as well.

To blame it solely, or even mainly, on the Titans, is akin to blaming a bombing solely on the bomb it's self.

The last time the comp rushed into expansion was 1995 and only half the teams survived.

It expanded to Adelaide and Perth and died after just a few seasons, lord knows what damage that did to the reputation and image of the game in those areas after years of careful promotion.

It's not like there weren't other contributing factors going on at the time...

BTW, for all sorts of reasons the Western Reds were probably doomed from the beginning, but when the Rams were kicked out they had money in the bank.

Rapid expansion is doomed to fail, in any sport. Just be patient and let the NRL learn some lessons and actually ensure they don't f**k up again.

Nobody is asking for "rapid expansion", all that they're asking for is some transparency and a plan, a real plan with targets, and a rough timeline in which the NRL hopes to achieve those targets!

BTW, there're plenty of examples of rapid expansion working out just fine in plenty of competitions around the world, the MLS come to mind off the top of my head. So it's not impossible, not that I'm necessarily supporting it in the NRL.

 

[Stallion]

In hindsight, and this coming from someone who lost their club to a merger, I think the idea was absolutely correct. I think Sydney has the maximum number of clubs it will ever need right now, so I see no reason why any clubs should be axed or merged ever again (unless they become insolvent that is)

The lack of expansion is to ensure it's done properly and that new clubs come in and stay in. I dare say there's hesitations given the basket case that the Titans became in such a short period of time.

The last time the comp rushed into expansion was 1995 and only half the teams survived.

It expanded to Adelaide and Perth and died after just a few seasons, lord knows what damage that did to the reputation and image of the game in those areas after years of careful promotion.

Rapid expansion is doomed to fail, in any sport. Just be patient and let the NRL learn some lessons and actually ensure they don't f**k up again.

Would suggest their is a hole in the Sydney market as a result of losing the Bears. Expansion and consolidation could have been achieved with a move to the Central Coast. This maintaining a longstanding derby rivalry with the now isolated Manly Warringah club. That's probably the crucial mistake. The other codes are capitalizing on the void of top flight RL in northern Sydney . It's happening and can still be rectified if they are smart. 18 teams can be easily accommodated without much issue if done wisely over the short term.

 

[flippikat]

To have a fair crack at the NZ market alone the NRL will need at least 3-4 clubs in the country...

I can't see 4 NZ clubs for a long time - if ever - but a club to rival the Warriors would be great.. their monopoly on NZ has (to a degree) bred a feeling of complacency that NZ sports fans will get behind them almost by default.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Would suggest their is a hole in the Sydney market as a result of losing the Bears. Expansion and consolidation could have been achieved with a move to the Central Coast. This maintaining a longstanding derby rivalry with the now isolated Manly Warringah club. That's probably the crucial mistake. The other codes are capitalizing on the void of top flight RL in northern Sydney . It's happening and can still be rectified if they are smart. 18 teams can be easily accommodated without much issue if done wisely over the short term.

Fix a hole in Sydney by putting a team in the Central Coast? lol

 

[tri_colours]

I can't see 4 NZ clubs for a long time - if ever - but a club to rival the Warriors would be great.. their monopoly on NZ has (to a degree) bred a feeling of complacency that NZ sports fans will get behind them almost by default.

NZ have had 3 owners in the past 2 years. Lets concentrate on just 1 succesful club there. At least for the foreseeable future

 

[MrE_Assassin]

NZ have had 3 owners in the past 2 years. Lets concentrate on just 1 succesful club there. At least for the foreseeable future

Agreed! NZ needs to be stable and consistently making finals before the NRL puts another team in NZ. The second team would almost certainly cannibalise the Warriors support, especially if they continue to underachieve, and then guess what... we're back to 1 NZ team.

 

[flippikat]

NZ have had 3 owners in the past 2 years. Lets concentrate on just 1 succesful club there. At least for the foreseeable future

Fair point, and they have given themselves a better chance at success by putting the ownership solely with Autex. It certainly helps having the focus that comes with one owner!

 

[The Great Dane]

Agreed! NZ needs to be stable and consistently making finals before the NRL puts another team in NZ. The second team would almost certainly cannibalise the Warriors support, especially if they continue to underachieve, and then guess what... we're back to 1 NZ team.

Creating a competent competitor could have the exact opposite effect for the Warriors. Suddenly having a competitor would force them to have to adapt to survive, which would force them to be have to become more competitive.

If things did go south and the Warriors went broke as a result of a new club being introduced the NRL would take over the license (they'd have to to maintain their contracts with NZ broadcasters), so the club wouldn't die off, and in that scenario that'd probably be a good thing because it'd give the NRL more control over the direction of the club and who controls it. So though this may sound a little brutal it'd almost certainly be a win win scenario whether the expansion was successful or not.

I'm not necessarily advocating for a second NZ team to be brought into the competition right now (frankly I don't think that NZ should even be considered until all the major markets in Australia are represented), but unless something catastrophic happens it's inevitable that eventually the NRL is going to grow it's footprint in NZ, and when that happens it's going to happen whether the Warriors are ready or not.

Also let's be honest, though introducing a second club into NZ will inevitably cannibalise some of the Warriors support, just like the Broncos in Queensland the Warriors don't have a right to claim the whole country, and it's unlikely that the Warriors active support will be seriously effected so long as the new club isn't based in Auckland.

 

[MrE_Assassin]

Creating a competent competitor could have the exact opposite effect for the Warriors. Suddenly having a competitor would force them to have to adapt to survive, which would force them to be have to become more competitive.

If things did go south and the Warriors went broke as a result of a new club being introduced the NRL would take over the license (they'd have to to maintain their contracts with NZ broadcasters), so the club wouldn't die off, and in that scenario that'd probably be a good thing because it'd give the NRL more control over the direction of the club and who controls it. So though this may sound a little brutal it'd almost certainly be a win win scenario whether the expansion was successful or not.

I'm not necessarily advocating for a second NZ team to be brought into the competition right now (frankly I don't think that NZ should even be considered until all the major markets in Australia are represented), but unless something catastrophic happens it's inevitable that eventually the NRL is going to grow it's footprint in NZ, and when that happens it's going to happen whether the Warriors are ready or not.

Also let's be honest, though introducing a second club into NZ will inevitably cannibalise some of the Warriors support, just like the Broncos in Queensland the Warriors don't have a right to claim the whole country, and it's unlikely that the Warriors active support will be seriously effected so long as the new club isn't based in Auckland.

I agree with you in parts but as far as if the Warriors were to collapse, the NRL will not bail them out.

That’s the whole point of the NRL giving the clubs the $13M each season. The NRL stated that it would no longer bail clubs out, they won’t take over the club. The Warriors wouldn’t go bust overnight so the NRL could sound out new bids to take over before the Warriors collapse completely. If there was another NZ club and the Warriors went bust the NRL still has an NZ club so they are technically still abiding by their contractual obligations for broadcasting in NZ.

 

[The Great Dane]

I agree with you in parts but as far as if the Warriors were to collapse, the NRL will not bail them out.

That’s the whole point of the NRL giving the clubs the $13M each season. The NRL stated that it would no longer bail clubs out, they won’t take over the club. The Warriors wouldn’t go bust overnight so the NRL could sound out new bids to take over before the Warriors collapse completely. If there was another NZ club and the Warriors went bust the NRL still has an NZ club so they are technically still abiding by their contractual obligations for broadcasting in NZ.

Frankly when the NRL say they aren't going to bail out clubs they are talking about the clubs that are expendable, not clubs like the Warriors (or the Storm and Broncos) that's existence are necessary for the NRL to be able to function as it does.

Also if they were to do what you suggest they wouldn't look for new clubs to replace the Warriors, they'd organise buyers to buy the Warriors once they go bust, which is basically exactly the same as I suggested in function.

 

[MrE_Assassin]

Frankly when the NRL say they aren't going to bail out clubs they are talking about the clubs that are expendable, not clubs like the Warriors (or the Storm and Broncos) that's existence are necessary for the NRL to be able to function as it does.

Also if they were to do what you suggest they wouldn't look for new clubs to replace the Warriors, they'd organise buyers to buy the Warriors once they go bust, which is basically exactly the same as I suggested in function.

Fair point, but in the scenario I posed where a second NZ club exists, would the Warriors not then be expendable because there is another NZ club in existence to bridge the void left by the Warriors?

Basically all I'm saying is that if you have 2 teams in an area and one goes belly up because of poor attendance, performance and financials then it clearly shows the area isn't established enough for a second team... so why would the NRL care about bailing it out or finding someone to prop it up when they could put the licence to better use? I'm sure the NRL's contract doesn't say that the Warriors/Broncos/Storm have to be there.... just that there needs to be a presence in those areas to sell/broadcast games and that the NRL has to have X amount of content over the space of the year.

 

[The Great Dane]

Fair point, but in the scenario I posed where a second NZ club exists, would the Warriors not then be expendable because there is another NZ club in existence to bridge the void left by the Warriors?

Nah, at that point there being two NZ clubs would be a stipulation of their contracts with NZ broadcasters (they'd probably also stipulate where those clubs are from as well), so the NRL would still need the Warriors or at least two clubs.

Basically all I'm saying is that if you have 2 teams in an area and one goes belly up because of poor attendance, performance and financials then it clearly shows the area isn't established enough for a second team... so why would the NRL care about bailing it out or finding someone to prop it up when they could put the licence to better use? I'm sure the NRL's contract doesn't say that the Warriors/Broncos/Storm have to be there.... just that there needs to be a presence in those areas to sell/broadcast games and that the NRL has to have X amount of content over the space of the year.

There're plenty of places that have consistently shown they are incapable of supporting a club yet the NSWRL/ARL/NRL maintain clubs in those places for strategic or commercial reasons. For example the GC, Newcastle, and probably more than half of the Sydney clubs, have shown time again that for whatever reasons maintaining a club in their regions isn't financially sustainable, but all of them are maintained because the NRL wants or needs them for all sorts of reasons.

If a second NZ club was to send the Warriors over the edge (or vice versa), which BTW I think is unlikely so long as the second club was handled well, maintaining both clubs even though they aren't stable businesses would be no different to the above. Personally I'd compare it to the AFL effectively bankrolling (and in their case, rigging the competition in favor of) unsustainable clubs in the "Northern" states for decades, it'd be a long term investment to create a larger market for RL in NZ.

BTW, If the Warriors were to fail in Auckland there's no reason to believe that what would effectively just be a new brand would be any more successful, so giving the Warriors license to new Auckland clubs wouldn't necessarily be any better for the NRL. If anything I think most people would argue that that it is a bad idea after the chain of clubs on the GC.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

View attachment 29174

Drop sharks, panthers And manly and put in Souths, knights, Storm, tigers, CC and dragons and you’ve got the perfect 14 club competition that would have seen the game in a very different place over the last 20 years. If we could afford 16 ave. Two wildcard spots for two next best Sydney clubs.

I agree with this. I'd probably have the eels in though.

Sydney should have done back then what Brisbane, Newcastle, Canberra and Auckland have done. Put history behind and make a tough decision to move forward with a super club. In Sydney's case this probably wouldn't have been new entities but move forward with the big clubs and leave the rest in NSW Cup.

Dogs, Eels, Souths, St George Illawarra Dragons merge, Wests Tigers Merge and Northern Eagles on the Central Coast (if Norths later went broke, Manly should have stuck with the Central Coast) and probably the Roosters to represent the affluent areas of Sydney. That would give us:

North QLD
Broncos
Crushers
Gold Coast Titanically Giant Seagull Chargers
Auckland
Newcastle
Northern Eagles (Central Coast)
Sydney Roosters
Souths
St George Illawarra
Canterbury
Parramatta
West Sydney Tigers
Melbourne Storm
Adelaide Rams
WA Reds

 

[MugaB]

North QLD Cowboys
Brisbane Broncos
South Brisbane Rabbitohs (Suncorp)
South QLD Titans (GC/Suncorp)
Auckland Warriors
Newcastle Knights
East Sydney Sharks (Allianz)
Illawarra Dragons
South Sydney Bulldogs (ANZ)
Penrith Panthers
West Sydney Tigers (WSS)
South Isle Sea Eagles (NZ)
Gosford Browns (CC)
Melbourne Storm
Adelaide Archangels
Perth Pirates

That would be my 16 teams
Browns can be a bear or snake,
Drop parra, relocate manly to NZ, rabbits to QLD, merge roosters and sharks, bring in 3 new teams

 

[tri_colours]

Would suggest their is a hole in the Sydney market as a result of losing the Bears. Expansion and consolidation could have been achieved with a move to the Central Coast. This maintaining a longstanding derby rivalry with the now isolated Manly Warringah club. That's probably the crucial mistake. The other codes are capitalizing on the void of top flight RL in northern Sydney . It's happening and can still be rectified if they are smart. 18 teams can be easily accommodated without much issue if done wisely over the short term.

A saturated market is what the AFL have in Melbourne and it hasn't stunted there growth.

 

[Perth Red]

A saturated market is what the AFL have in Melbourne and it hasn't stunted there growth.

Because they’re clubs have supported it, not opposed it. They’ve been able to grow because the clubs accept a variable grant system, largely because they are successfully run, unlike most nrl clubs.

Not to mention their first expansion was based on relocation out of the over crowded market lol