Todd Greenberg has pretty much said one Sydney team will be relocated.

[flippikat]

I know your preference is Wellington, but what are your views on Christchurch's ability to host a full-time team? Do you think that in 30 years time we could have Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch in the NRL?

I think it's perfectly feasible that New Zealand could have 3 teams within the next 15-20 years, it just takes the will of the NRL to look at it.

The good thing about the NRL season is that it's longer than the top-tier Super Rugby season. That means any NZ expansion teams can try regional models far more effectively than the rugby union equivalent.

The Super Rugby Hurricanes (which are supposed to represent the whole lower North Island) have 8 home games, 7 played in Wellington, and one of the home games in Palmerston North or Napier, as those are the two biggest cities in the Hurricanes region.
(They used to take games to New Plymouth, but thats now part of Chiefs territory & gets a chiefs game, long story...)

Now, if you had an NRL equivalent - say, Wellington Orcas - with a season running all the way from March to September you get 10 to 12 home games (depending on whether the competition is stopped for rep games in mid-season).. so it's far less of an impact to put a game or two out to other centres - hell, the Orcas could do a game each year in New Plymouth AND Napier - and still have more Wellington home games than the Hurricanes!!


Imagine if you will...

Auckland Warriors (top of the North Island) - Home ground Mt Smart (or a new Auckland stadium), two games per year in Hamilton

Wellington Orcas (Bottom of North Island) - Home Ground Westpac Stadium - one game per year in Napier, one game per year New Plymouth - roughly the old Hurricanes territory.

South Island Keas (South Island) - Home Ground AMI Stadium, Christchurch, two games per year in Dunedin's covered stadium.

THAT is a huge win for Rugby League.. spreading the profile of the game 6 times a year to NZ's provinces.

 

[flippikat]

According to Wiki Auckland has a pop of 1.6 mil while Wellington and Christchurch are both around 400k with Wellington being slightly larger.

Would it be better fro RL to have a game every week in Auckland rather than other smaller centres?

I personally think NZ should have a regional model similar to what Super Rugby have tried. (See my post above about 3 NZ teams - Upper North, Lower North & South Island, based in Auckland, Wellington & Christchurch respectively).

The fact the the NRL season is longer than Super Rugby (and so has more home games, making it less of an impact to take one or two to a secondary market), makes this a huge winner in my reckoning.

 

[Stallion]

I think it's perfectly feasible that New Zealand could have 3 teams within the next 15-20 years, it just takes the will of the NRL to look at it.

The good thing about the NRL season is that it's longer than the top-tier Super Rugby season. That means any NZ expansion teams can try regional models far more effectively than the rugby union equivalent.

The Super Rugby Hurricanes (which are supposed to represent the whole lower North Island) have 8 home games, 7 played in Wellington, and one of the home games in Palmerston North or Napier, as those are the two biggest cities in the Hurricanes region.
(They used to take games to New Plymouth, but thats now part of Chiefs territory & gets a chiefs game, long story...)

Now, if you had an NRL equivalent - say, Wellington Orcas - with a season running all the way from March to September you get 10 to 12 home games (depending on whether the competition is stopped for rep games in mid-season).. so it's far less of an impact to put a game or two out to other centres - hell, the Orcas could do a game each year in New Plymouth AND Napier - and still have more Wellington home games than the Hurricanes!!


Imagine if you will...

Auckland Warriors (top of the North Island) - Home ground Mt Smart (or a new Auckland stadium), two games per year in Hamilton

Wellington Orcas (Bottom of North Island) - Home Ground Westpac Stadium - one game per year in Napier, one game per year New Plymouth - roughly the old Hurricanes territory.

South Island Keas (South Island) - Home Ground AMI Stadium, Christchurch, two games per year in Dunedin's covered stadium.

THAT is a huge win for Rugby League.. spreading the profile of the game 6 times a year to NZ's provinces.

All for additional clubs over time! Just no carving up of existing clubs and fan bases. But it seems very progressive and given the plight of the code in NZ as far as school presence is concerned, it's obviously positive for the code.

 

[Cumberland Throw]

NS cbd to Manly is only 13km. It might as well be 1300 though as Manly are simply not equipped to be the club for the whole northern Sydney region that the NRL needs. For the good of the game it would be better if they were dropped to NSW cup and a new Northern Regions neutral club was formed to pull in the fanbase of this 1million plus old Bears, Many and CC fanbase. Biggest issue is where would they play? This area of million doesn't have a suitable 25k stadium. Ideally they'd have an accessible base with a decent 25k stadium and play three games at Gosford but that wont happen. The NRL in Sydney will be forever confined by its suburban mentality and difficult geography and travel it would seem.

No Sydney NRL team really has the smarts to own a 200km area realistically..

Even the fringe regional ones won't have a crack really

You don't see knights doing much in Port Macquarie for example

Canberra visits Wagga once every 20 years

St George don't do much in batemans bay

Panthers just starting to look at Bathurst ..

Parramatta won't even try to take over baulkham hills ffs

 

[Stallion]

To all. Please read the article in the West Coast Pirates thread. It is exactly the scenario and encompasses accurately what is at stake. And this is the prudent way to think. Hope you see the sense.

 

[MrE_Assassin]

To all. Please read the article in the West Coast Pirates thread. It is exactly the scenario and encompasses accurately what is at stake. And this is the prudent way to think. Hope you see the sense.

To be totally fair though, it doesn’t say we need more Sydney/NSW teams either, just that it needs to fortify. This can still be done by a current team expanding its influence in untapped or under represented areas.

It’s talking about going to those areas that currently have no representation, like Perth. It also means that we don’t need the entire population of Perth to get behind the NRL, just those who aren’t AFL followers.

I still think the Bears won’t make it back, not while there are completely untapped areas. The only option would be for the bears to establish themselves in an untapped city.

 

[Stallion]

To be totally fair though, it doesn’t say we need more Sydney/NSW teams either, just that it needs to fortify. This can still be done by a current team expanding its influence in untapped or under represented areas.

It’s talking about going to those areas that currently have no representation, like Perth. It also means that we don’t need the entire population of Perth to get behind the NRL, just those who aren’t AFL followers.

I still think the Bears won’t make it back, not while there are completely untapped areas. The only option would be for the bears to establish themselves in an untapped city.

The overall thrust of the article was very positive. An extremely good article which covers many of the factors involved. It's a beauty! Well done! My ppint on the Bears is that it could work and further expansion without losing established supporters. It covers the scenario in Melbourne and and Sydney very well. Once again. Well done!

 

[adamkungl]

Imagine if you will...

Auckland Warriors (top of the North Island) - Home ground Mt Smart (or a new Auckland stadium), two games per year in Hamilton

Wellington Orcas (Bottom of North Island) - Home Ground Westpac Stadium - one game per year in Napier, one game per year New Plymouth - roughly the old Hurricanes territory.

South Island Keas (South Island) - Home Ground AMI Stadium, Christchurch, two games per year in Dunedin's covered stadium.

THAT is a huge win for Rugby League.. spreading the profile of the game 6 times a year to NZ's provinces.

This should be the long term goal.

Rugby League really does have an embarrasment of potential riches if it ever finds the vision to capitalise.
Expansion Round 1: Perth and Brisbane
Round 2: Wellington and Christchurch! (ha, imagine a double NZ expansion. Ballsy as f**k)
Sydney Relocation -> Adelaide

Perfect

Keas is an awesome mascot! I'd go Christchurch Keas, rolls off the tongue a bit nicer.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

This should be the long term goal.

Rugby League really does have an embarrasment of potential riches if it ever finds the vision to capitalise.
Expansion Round 1: Perth and Brisbane
Round 2: Wellington and Christchurch! (ha, imagine a double NZ expansion. Ballsy as f**k)
Sydney Relocation -> Adelaide

Perfect

Keas is an awesome mascot! I'd go Christchurch Keas, rolls off the tongue a bit nicer.

View attachment 28524

Canterbury Bulldogs for the south island anyone? lol

 

[titoelcolombiano]

The union example is a local and cultural example of another code gaining traction as a result of rugby league abandoning it's supporters as witnessed in the North Sydney "execution "

Could you please provide the source / evidence to link the rise in Shute Shield crowds to the Bears demise when the two events happened 17 years apart.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

With your rants. Yes!

I've just reviewed this trail and I've found that only one of us are ranting and it isn't me.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

https://www.theroar.com.au/2019/03/28/the-sydney-roosters-the-most-logical-team-for-relocation/

The Sydney Roosters are the most logical team for relocation


Tim Gore
Expert
13 hours ago
200
6043 Reads
There has been a lot of talk recently about relocating a team from Sydney to either greater Brisbane or Perth.

It seems that the prevailing logic is that there are too many teams in the Sydney area to be viable.

I don’t necessarily agree with that logic at all. I’d rather my team die than relocate, and I don’t think I’m even close to the Lone Ranger in that view.

FacebookTwitterWhatsappRedditEmail
Share
I view the suggestion that a side should be relocated from the Sydney area as the type of logic that could only emanate from people with only a financial attachment to the game, or those who know that their team is in no danger of relocation.

Uprooting a side from its historical heartland risks killing a little bit more of the game’s soul.

There is a hollow and distant look in the eyes of North Sydney Bears and Newtown supporters. It’s one I never want to have. It’s one I don’t want to have inflicted on another supporter.

Billy Moore of the Bears shows his frustration during a NRL match between the St George Dragons and the North Sydney Bears at Kogarah Oval 1998, in Sydney, Australia. (Photo by Getty Images)

They don’t really care. Sure, they might watch the grand finals and State of Origin, but their passionate love for the game has gone.

However, if a side is to be relocated, there is an obvious choice: The Sydney Roosters.


Advertisement
“WTF?!?!” I hear you cry.

“Not only are they the reigning NRL Premiers, they have been in seven of the last 19 grand finals. They are a foundation club. You can’t be serious!”

I’m deadly serious.

It makes perfect sense. It is completely logical. The numbers support it.

And that’s what controls the game these days: numbers.

The biggest number controlling the game is the numerical value of the broadcast deal. That dollar value influences all sorts of things including the absolute pre-eminence of State of Origin and how the NRL devises the draw for each season.

If a team is to be relocated it should be one for whom the numbers were the poorest. Not in regard to actual current success, but in regards to their actual fan-base and potential to grow that base.

The issue for the Roosters is that when you actually look at all of the numbers it is hard to see how they would not be the clear favourite for relocation.


Advertisement
Memberships and crowds
The first criteria that I would look at if I was contemplating relocating a team would be the side’s actual membership. These figures show the membership numbers for each of the teams in the greater Sydney area so far in 2019, as well as for the previous four seasons.

Club Name 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015
Rabbitohs 28,394 29,189 30,220 32,813 35,311
Eels 22,724 25,145 24,501 23,779 22,824
Dragons 19,232 21,197 19,181 17,932 18,117
Wests Tigers 18,895 20,794 18,074 14,879 9,342
Panthers 18,722 20,477 20,248 20,195 19,884
Bulldogs 15,138 19,570 18,833 20,703 18,240
Sharks 14,843 15,802 15,613 14,325 10,610
Roosters 13,710 16,044 16,001 14,458 16,682
Sea Eagles 11,375 12,430 13,163 13,351 12,265
Total Memberships 163,033 180,648 175,834 172,435 163,275
Average 18,114 20,072 19,537 19,159 18,141
As you can see, the Roosters – the current NRL Premiers – have the second lowest memberships so far this year. Only the Sea Eagles are below them.

Both the Bulldogs and the Eels are having a fairly rough time of it right now results wise and they are both in front of the Roosters. The Eels have over 9,000 more members in spite of collecting the wooden spoon in 2018.

Imagine how big the Bulldogs and Eels membership numbers would be if they were experiencing the type of good results that the Roosters are.

In every season from 2015 onwards the Roosters have been below the membership average of the Sydney NRL sides.

The actual attendance numbers aren’t much better either.

Club Name Aggregate 2018 Average 2017 Average
Rabbitohs 222,367 18,531 10.903
Wests Tigers 207,487 17,291 13,551
Dragons 199,268 16,606 13,334
Panthers 171,170 14,264 12,922
Bulldogs 170,182 14,182 14,039
Roosters 159,287 13,274 15,387
Sharks 152,397 12,700 12,953
Sea Eagles 134,778 11,232 13,493
Eels 134,096 11,175 14,346
Total 1,551,032 (172,336 avg) 14,362 (avg) 13,436 (avg)

Advertisement
As you can see, the Roosters’ 2018 home crowds were below the average in spite of it being a winning season.

If the Tri-Colours can’t generate large support when they are being successful, surely that casts great doubt over their long term viability in the market place.

Location and juniors
It is widely known that actual home-grown-from-juniors Roosters are as rare as hens teeth

With all due respect to Tim Gore, this isn't going to happen. The Roosters are the wealthiest and most financial stable of the Sydney clubs. They have friends in high places in Sydney and they have just signed a 25 year agreement to play at the new Allianz Stadium.

 

[VictoryFC]

People still dont understand that there will be no relocation. The comp will expand. Dont waste you energy talking about which club will move. None will.

 

[flippikat]

This should be the long term goal.

Rugby League really does have an embarrasment of potential riches if it ever finds the vision to capitalise.
Expansion Round 1: Perth and Brisbane
Round 2: Wellington and Christchurch! (ha, imagine a double NZ expansion. Ballsy as f**k)
Sydney Relocation -> Adelaide

Perfect

Keas is an awesome mascot! I'd go Christchurch Keas, rolls off the tongue a bit nicer.

View attachment 28524

The Kea club colours would be the green/orange/brown plumage of the bird - a unique look in the NRL & it also avoids using traditional provincial colours so all the South Island can get behind them.

 

[Perth Red]

Its amazing how so many people in Brisbane can be passionate about RL with only one NRL club, yet it takes nine (and some want more!) to maintain that passion and interest in Sydney. Seems an in-congruent argument to me?

I also struggle to see how people would rather their club die than relocate. Given most fans dont even live in the suburb their club originated from and do most of their supporting via the TV it seems a strange preference.

 

[adamkungl]

Its amazing how so many people in Brisbane can be passionate about RL with only one NRL club, yet it takes nine (and some want more!) to maintain that passion and interest in Sydney.

Yeah that's a tad bullshit PR, more people pay to watch Rugby League in Sydney than Brisbane every week without fail.

 

[Perth Red]

Yeah that's a tad bullshit PR, more people pay to watch Rugby League in Sydney than Brisbane every week without fail.

To do a fair comparison of that you would have to have 4 clubs in Brisbane to have the same club to population spread. Its a proven fact that more clubs will mean more people attending, up to a saturation point.

Tv viewing and participation is higher, per population, in Brisbane than Sydney, suggesting there is significant interest in RL across the city, all with just one club.

 

[Perth Red]

People still dont understand that there will be no relocation. The comp will expand. Dont waste you energy talking about which club will move. None will.

Agreed, for three reasons.
1) If the NRL wants to close the 25% revenue gap on AFL it has to have more content to sell in next tV deal
2) No sydney club is going to be in financial strife in next 2-3 years to the point where they have no option but to accept relocation
3) The NRL does not have the balls to force relocation or drop a club or two out based on a criteria system.

We will have 18 clubs by 2023 or we will be stuck with the current scenario.

 

[Xcalibre]

Plenty of times.

Did you say the same about starting a club up in Melbourne?

I can’t remember what I thought tbh. Probably that it was a novelty.

Good luck replicating that though. It was the right people in certain positions that has endured, mainly Bellamy and the big 4. If they didn’t have quick and sustained success, it might be a different story.

Melbourne isn’t a million miles away from RL heartland like Perth either. Only a few hours to the riverina etc.

 

[siv]

With all due respect to Tim Gore, this isn't going to happen. The Roosters are the wealthiest and most financial stable of the Sydney clubs. They have friends in high places in Sydney and they have just signed a 25 year agreement to play at the new Allianz Stadium.

Guess it comes down which Criteria is being used

Friends in high places should not be a criteria item