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

[MrE_Assassin]

But don’t the sharks have the south coast to themselves?.

Short answer is No. The Sharks don't really have much of a direct association anywhere outside the Sutherland Shire. The Dragons probably have more influence down that way or even Canberra.

 

[2012....Sharks Year]

It would seem pretty obvious that the Nrl are giving all 16 current clubs every opportunity to survive given that the annual grant is now 120% of the salary cap. Add this to the fact that the clubs are only obliged to spend 95% of their cap each year and even the poorly managed clubs like the Sharks have some breathing space.
As far as expansion...the solution would seem relatively simple. To appease the broadcasters you add a second Brisbane team and a Perth side to provide a 9th game each week. To maximise the interest you now have 9 Sydney teams in a "conference" and also 9 teams in a regional conference. Each of the Sydney teams play the other Sydney teams twice (16 games) a play the regional teams once (9 games). 25 regular season games equates to 12 home and away games for each club with the 25th round being the super round (here to stay)? The regional teams would just do it in reverse Sydney based derbies would be far increased as would the number of Brisbane derbies (with 4 Queensland teams) . Make it happen Toddy.

 

[The Great Dane]

I'm not really sure why the NRL are bringing up relocation like they are.

Realistically a 9th game will be worth quite a bit to the NRL cause it's more content to sell, where as unless you've got people willing to subsidise the relocation, such as local governments, new owners that want to relocate the club, broadcasters that want teams in specific markets, etc, relocation can actually be a very expensive enterprise, so it seems strange to me that Greenberg would be talking up relocation given the NRL's current situation and the almost certain fact that even if Fox and Nine don't want to pay for the extra content there're definitely people out theire that would be happy to pay handsomely for it.

All of that leads me to suspect that the NRL, or at least Greenberg, realise that they really need to have teams in at least three or four 'new' markets now if they are going to compete in the pro sports market long term, and they think either that selling two more games at once to broadcasters would be a big ask (which it probably would be) or that there isn't enough talent to support that much expansion all at once, so they are considering other methods to fast track expansion so they can get a presence in those markets as quickly as possible, which is leading them, or at least Greenberg, down the route of floating ideas like relocations and BS like 'you don't need to expand to markets to have a meaningful presence in that market'.

Anyhow, there'll be some interesting times ahead to say the least, but I really hope that they don't come to the conclusion that it's better to relocate clubs to Perth and Brisbane then expand to those markets... Both Perth and Brisbane have multiple groups ready and willing to pay the NRL for a license, so if you're going to relocate clubs those aren't the places to relocate them to.

 

[T to the T]

Don't do relocation. I turned by back on RU in South Wales because my team got dumped from the competition. It has to be a new team not to alienate fans.

Culling a team will be the lifeline the Waratahs and Giants need.

 

[super_coach]

Criteria will be come Greenberg’s buzz word soon. They will identify the teams they want out of the Sydney market and set a criteria that they will fail.

Logic tell you that the Chooks are the team that geographically serve no purpose and have no junior league to speak of. Onthe other hand the are financially rock solid and I think that will be no1 criteria.

I think they will go down the 18 team comp to avoid the legal mine field and that will be a disaster as it will have a massive inflationary effect on the player market similar to the super war days.

 

[flippikat]

All of that leads me to suspect that the NRL, or at least Greenberg, realise that they really need to have teams in at least three or four 'new' markets now if they are going to compete in the pro sports market long term, and they think either that selling two more games at once to broadcasters would be a big ask (which it probably would be) or that there isn't enough talent to support that much expansion all at once, so they are considering other methods to fast track expansion so they can get a presence in those markets as quickly as possible, which is leading them, or at least Greenberg, down the route of floating ideas like relocations and BS like 'you don't need to expand to markets to have a meaningful presence in that market'.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head right there.. the realisation that the NRL needs 3 or 4 new markets ASAP (including a true Brisbane derby) to catch up with other codes, offset with the fear that the code can't currently sustain more then 18 top-tier clubs.

3 or 4 new markets into 2 expansion spaces doesn't fit.

Interesting times ahead, indeed...

 

[franklin2323]

Say you move Sharks to Perth...What infrastructure does Perth have to prove they can sustain a team?

There is no way any team gets moved...More games will just move that is all

 

[franklin2323]

If they try and move some washed up Sydney license to Brisbane as Team 2, they're more stupid than everyone thinks they are.

Brisbane 2 needs to have a clear plan for starters...Which it doesn't

 

[Diesel]

If the 4 markets are Brisbane, WA, NZ & SA, the latter two would be more willing to take a relocation while Brisbane won’t take a NSW team and WA has a west coast vs east coast mentality, which I understand.

Two new teams and two relocations may be the plan for the next 15 years

 

[Diesel]

Brisbane 2 needs to have a clear plan for starters...Which it doesn't

That’s because there is no Brisbane 2 ATM.
It’s all speculation which teams or consortiums are willing to jump in. Only the Bombers have stated they are wanting in but they’re a Broncos carbon copy and I’m confident they’ll be overlooked for a more grassroots/community/QRL consortium

 

[franklin2323]

That’s because there is no Brisbane 2 ATM.
It’s all speculation which teams or consortiums are willing to jump in. Only the Bombers have stated they are wanting in but they’re a Broncos carbon copy and I’m confident they’ll be overlooked for a more grassroots/community/QRL consortium

For me you need to get that side of things sorted 1st. Teams in lower grades with junior structures in place.

GC is perfect example of not doing things properly. Short term moving games to regional/non heartland areas is more viable.

Put a date on new teams and work towards. Say 2025 gives them chance to actually run a club in QLD/NSW Cup and build up team

 

[rabbitohs]

If you go the geographical argument, roosters or Souths. Both lay claim to the east/south east corridor, but are pretty well boxed in outside of that

As i said the other week, the Souths ceo confirmed a few years ago that 80% of their members don’t even live in the south of Sydney any more

On that basis, it’s goodbye Souths

If they moved the dogs I’d understand as well. Don’t have a huge geographical space to lay claim to and don’t really have a sustainable/quality home ground option

Move two of the clubs with the biggest fan bases....lol. - good bait though.

Souths have a large and diverse fan base BECAUSE they didn't move/merge etc. when it seemed they had to. It's not going to happen now. Member Co. also has final say and those who are a part of that would NEVER leave Sydney.

EVERYONE knows its the Sharks to Perth.

 

[flippikat]

If the 4 markets are Brisbane, WA, NZ & SA, the latter two would be more willing to take a relocation while Brisbane won’t take a NSW team and WA has a west coast vs east coast mentality, which I understand.

Two new teams and two relocations may be the plan for the next 15 years

You may not be far off the mark.

To be honest I can't see Brisbane accepting a club that's been relocated from Sydney, and Perth have been steadily going about building the Pirates brand for their expansion bid.

However Adelaide & NZ don't have those factors to consider. I don't see them outrightly rejecting a Sydney club as I imagine Brisbane would, and there's no real push for a home grown brand to the same degree that Perth has put forward.

 

[tri_colours]

Would seem a few of us heard differently.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/03/20/toovey-and-kimmorley-back-expansion/

 

[MrE_Assassin]

If the 4 markets are Brisbane, WA, NZ & SA, the latter two would be more willing to take a relocation while Brisbane won’t take a NSW team and WA has a west coast vs east coast mentality, which I understand.

Two new teams and two relocations may be the plan for the next 15 years

I agree with this. I think I said the exact same thing or similar in another thread only a day or 2 ago. The first two clubs will be new expansions, with the next bracket of expansion being 2 relocated clubs in 10-15 years to give the Sydney clubs every opportunity to sort themselves out financially or identify that they are willing to relocate.

 

[Fangs]

Very unfortunate news for the Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks. But all good (and bad) things must come to an end.

 

[taipan]

Move two of the clubs with the biggest fan bases....lol. - good bait though.

Souths have a large and diverse fan base BECAUSE they didn't move/merge etc. when it seemed they had to. It's not going to happen now. Member Co. also has final say and those who are a part of that would NEVER leave Sydney.

EVERYONE knows its the Sharks to Perth.

EVERYONE???? You mean Kent, Ikin and the fun police here LOL. As if Perth want a relocated team.

I notice everlovin Ribot back on deck, claiming only one team is needed in Brisbane,and one in Perth and one in Adelaide.You wonder why things went A up, in 1995.He's still squirting in the Bronco's pockets.
The same Ribes stating ,ET was going to be on every billboard in China.

What if the 12 months investigation decides Perth numbers and finances and Tv deals don't stack up, just saying.Is it plan B?
What if hypothetically ,huge reduction in carbon emissions means huge unemployment in the next five to 10 years .Unemployment increase predictions have ranged up to an extra 336,000.It's a segment by some economist, not mine.
What if ch10 with their CBS backing, wants a slice of the action and 9 games per round fits the bill?

 

[The Great Dane]

There're so many people out there that simply don't understand what relocation is an attempt to do...

Some variation of 'what you expect the fans to keep following the club once it's moved to the other side of the country' is always brought up, take Kimmorley in that clip that Tri_colours linked to for example, and I'm always like no you f**king idiot they don't expect you to keep following the club once it relocates, they're trying to bloody replace you.

I mean why is it so hard to understand that relocation is the process of moving a business from one market to another one where it's either going to be cheaper to operate or that is bigger and/or richer.

In the context of professional sports that means that when a team relocates basically what they are attempting to do is trade one fan base for a new one, which basically means they are trying to replace the old fan base with a newer and bigger and/or richer one.

 

[taipan]

Very unfortunate news for the Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks. But all good (and bad) things must come to an end.

Yeah being out of debt is indeed unfortunate.
We need to be downtrodden.

 

[The Great Dane]

Also if the NRL is really serious about relocation I hope they don't try to continue with old brands. In my opinion it's much better to relocate the club, re-brand the club to represent the new market, but keep the old brand active in the old market as a reserves team with the old juniors system.

Knowing the NRL though they'll burn all their bridges on the way out if they relocate clubs.