What's new
The Front Row Forums

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!

TWO new Brisbane teams

flippikat

Bench
Messages
2,739
where are you going to take the $13million plus a year from to pay for this new club? Especially given anywhere between 12-25% reduced revenue from tv for the next 2 years? Only hope I can see to cover cost is selling an extra game to fta now the ptv deal is done until 2028.

The NRL may take a hit for a year or two, but the 18th team (and resulting 9th game) would be providing the boost when that enters. If the 17th team is in Brisbane, I imagine it'd be a pretty good earner in it's own right though, especially if they pick the best business case from a field of bids.
 

Quidgybo

Bench
Messages
3,022
I’m still not convinced that I’m entirely off the mark here.

With PVL and co hinting at a fifth Queensland team and expansion beyond 18 teams, it’s not a big leap to imagine that if the NZ2 effort isn’t ready on schedule and one of the other QLD bids can be, then a quick one-two expansion in (greater) Brisbane might still be possible.

if the Commission’s strategy/schedule really is to do both NZ2 and QLD5 with a relatively quick move beyond 18 teams to 19 (and thus then a quick move to 20), then perhaps the order isn't strictly important to them in the long run.
 
Last edited:

MugaB

Bench
Messages
3,597
I’m still not convinced that I’m entirely off the mark here.

With PVL and co hinting at a fifth Queensland team and expansion beyond 18 teams, it’s not a big leap to imagine that if the NZ2 effort isn’t ready on schedule and one of the other QLD bids an be, then a quick one-two expansion in (greater) Brisbane might still be possible.

if the Commission’s strategy/schedule really is to do both NZ2 and QLD5 with a relatively quick move beyond 18 teams to 19 (and thus then a quick move to 20), then perhaps the order isn't strictly important to them in the long run.
Depends on which bris2 bid they value as more important to the SEQ footprint they are trying to achieve, if they are keen on the western corridor area to hopefully prevent AFLs reach around Springfield, then the Jets bid might be first, but if they are purely looking at adding a team that can spread out and encapsulate more players, more money and rival the broncos, Dolphins might be first, i have a feeling they want to float the extra game this coming broadcast rights, thus both bids might get the tick...
Another bid I'm interested in seeing (not that it's going to be included in the 17th bid) is the Cairns/PNG pride bid, its one thing to rival the brisbane broncos at Suncorp, its another to put one in place far north to rival the Cowboys. Plus add all the hunters and pride players, it might get the 18th licence if they aren't wanting to over-saturate SEQ, or don't see a NZ2 coming to fruition in 5 years time
 

flippikat

Bench
Messages
2,739
I’m still not convinced that I’m entirely off the mark here.

With PVL and co hinting at a fifth Queensland team and expansion beyond 18 teams, it’s not a big leap to imagine that if the NZ2 effort isn’t ready on schedule and one of the other QLD bids can be, then a quick one-two expansion in (greater) Brisbane might still be possible.

if the Commission’s strategy/schedule really is to do both NZ2 and QLD5 with a relatively quick move beyond 18 teams to 19 (and thus then a quick move to 20), then perhaps the order isn't strictly important to them in the long run.

Yeah, I get the feeling that his desired order is Qld 4, NZ 2, Qld 5, then *tbc*.

While having a "fallback" plan of Qld 4, then Qld 5, THEN NZ 2, then *tbc* is easy to swap-out, it doesn't exactly generate confidence for the WA rugby league community who have a bid ready to roll (which can't be said of NZ).

Securing the heartland is one thing, but if it also means being wilfully blind to opportunities outside Qld/NZ, then that's selling the game short.
 
Messages
3,941
Yeah, I get the feeling that his desired order is Qld 4, NZ 2, Qld 5, then *tbc*.

While having a "fallback" plan of Qld 4, then Qld 5, THEN NZ 2, then *tbc* is easy to swap-out, it doesn't exactly generate confidence for the WA rugby league community who have a bid ready to roll (which can't be said of NZ).

Securing the heartland is one thing, but if it also means being wilfully blind to opportunities outside Qld/NZ, then that's selling the game short.
RL's lack of vision and inaction over the last 25 years is starting to catch up with us. While AwFuL were carefully building the infrastructure needed to become a truly national competition during the 80s and 90s, our game has ignored every market outside of Sydney and the Broncos/Storm, largely due to Rupert Murdoch's influence and pressure from the clubs to retain the status quo as they don't want competition.

From 1998 until 2008 there was just one team in all of SEQ because Murdoch didn't want competition. That gave the Lions and AwFuL a bigger leg up in SEQ than the Swans got from the Super League War. Brisbane's RL market has been taken for granted and left to rot on the vine for over 20 years. Now the ARLC is worried that it could kill the goose that lays the golden egg, State of Origin, which is the only product our game has that keeps us relevant. Take that away and we have a club competition that draws great ratings in 2 states and 1 territory, with limited but valuable success in Melbourne. Big games involving the Storm add valuable viewers, but let's not kid ourselves, we're not a national sport and it's starting to hurt us commercially.
 

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
43,972
A good article when we consider adding a third Brisbane club before we actually expand the game (lets be honest more Brisbane clubs isnt 'expanding' its just consolidating what we have.)


Does The NRL Want To Expand, Or Does It Just Want To Have More Teams?
The size of the National Rugby League (NRL) is something that never seems to be off the agenda. While I am the #NRLOutsider, it’s hardly an issue that I’m unaware of, because it’s also never really off the agenda in the UK either, where we expand and contract like an accordion.
The NRL, however, seems to have a slightly different problem: it expands, but it doesn’t get bigger. Since Melbourne Storm joined the competition in 1998, it hasn’t made any concerted effort to actually increase the footprint of the sport, and given that league supremo Peter V’Landys seems principally concerned with adding another team in Brisbane, it doesn’t seem likely that anything is going to change soon in that regard.
V’Landys confirmed in February that a second Brisbane team would be added to the competition in the very near future, and was bullish about the prospects of putting another outfit to catch the increasing population of South East Queensland.
Given that there is already a huge NRL team in the Brisbane area, plus another one down the road on the Gold Coast, this doesn’t seem to make much sense. Surely, over 30 years after they entered the competition, anyone who moves to the area is going to have heard of the Brisbane Broncos?
The best option, looking at the existing proposals, is that the successful bid is the one from the Ipswich Jets, who could feasibly host an NRL team that doesn’t tread on the Broncos, and could grow in tune with the population, which is slated to double from 200,000 to 400,000 in the next decade or so.
That would take the NRL to 17 teams, and open the door for an 18th to even up the numbers. At this stage, that team might be in Perth, the South Island of New Zealand, Wellington, Adelaide, the Central Coast of New South Wales, Papua New Guinea, Fiji or somewhere else in Queensland. All is contingent on the 2022 TV deal, which could potentially fund any expansion.
Who could be the 18th NRL team?
The frontrunners, according to some in the media, would be the Central Coast Bears, or as you might remember them, the North Sydney Bears. While that would be delightful for those of us with a passion for old suburban grounds and nice retro jerseys, I’m not sure that it is the message that rugby league wants to send the world.

The Central Coast’s argument appears to be based on their prior success in producing players and the fast population growth in the region, which has accelerated since the COVID-19 pandemic as people leave Sydney.

The issue there would be two-fold: one, their juniors, such as Melbourne’s Nicho Hynes and Newcastle Knights’ Saifiti brothers, Daniel and Jacob, are already playing in the NRL for other teams, so the lack of a local options clearly isn’t holding anyone back; and two, literally everyone moving from Sydney has already heard of rugby league, and probably has a team that they follow. That’s not expanding, it’s just having more teams.

The real argument would be for trying to grow the game in a way that hasn’t been attempted since the 1990s. Expansion, that is to say, real expansion, costs a lot of money and takes time and effort. Someone has to be willing to lose money in the short term to gain it back in the long or very long term. Ultimately, only a governing body is likely to take that challenge on.
Deepening the NRL talent pool

As far as arguments against expansion go, they tend to line up around two positions. One is that the talent pool isn’t deep enough, the other is that it would cost too much money for too little gain.

The first is palpably nonsense: if the league expanded to 18 teams, or even 20, they could certainly source more players. I watch plenty of second grade NSW Cup and even third grade Ron Massey Cup, and when NRL players get dropped and have to play at that level, they don’t suddenly start to look like superstars: if anything, the players who truly stand out are the youngsters chomping at the bit to get a change at first grade.

In England, where there has been a multi-divisional system for decades, they regularly source players from lower leagues and give them a go to see if they’re good enough. Given that the Aussie dollar exchange rate with the British pound is now $1.60 (it was once close to $3), the best Super League talent would be far more incentivised to come over than they currently are.

You also have two teams of Melanesians, the Kaiviti Silktails and the PNG Hunters, running around in lower grades waiting for a chance to be signed to the NRL, plus potential to add pathways from Tonga, Samoa and other Pacific nations.

If anything, the problem with player development in the NRL is that there are too many players in pathways that can’t find a gig at the top level, with first grade standard players stuck in second grade waiting for an opportunity.

A secondary line of argument is that an expanded competition would lead to lop-sided results between the established powers and the new teams. Leaving aside that this year’s competition has already cleaved itself into the top five and everyone else, that is more of an issue of allocating better players around the league. Last time I checked, the salary cap is designed to do exactly that, and given a few years and proper enforcement, would.

How the NRL can invite investment via expansion

Let’s run a thought experiment in which, instead of increasing the salary cap by $2m AUD across each team, you take that cash and put it into four new central distribution pots for new clubs to offer around the league, topped up by owners’ franchise fees. If you don’t believe players wouldn’t move to new markets, let me remind you that David Fifita turned down the Broncos to go to the Gold Coast and is currently killing it.

You might not, at first, convince the top earners to move, but you’d get the fourth and fifth. The Rugby League Players Association (RLPA) might object, but realistically, the NRL has never been in a stronger position to negotiate with them given the weakness of rugby union, the traditional destination for disgruntled league players, the poor financial state of the Super League and the unlikelihood, on the back of a season with a long stoppage, that they would resort to a strike. Who knows, perhaps they might even like the idea of gaining another 100 professional rugby league players in their organization?

The financial benefits of an increased media footprint are obvious. If you add teams in Perth and New Zealand, you gain two extra time slots for valuable content, with the potential for a lucrative third match on a Sunday afternoon or evening. You gain new audiences, new media markets and the chance to market to new people that you don’t get by, as the phrase has it, fishing where the fish are.

Currently, nobody in Western Australia has any vested interest in the NRL and the ground is totally ceded to the Australian Football League (AFL) and, criminally, rugby union. In New Zealand, you have a chance to make an indent into rugby union at a time when their national game is moving further and further away from ordinary Kiwis.

Of course, this is easy to say and harder to do. But Peter V’Landys has shown a willingness to take on big tasks before, and is in the unusual position in rugby league of having the political power to take on a big project. He even might even have the cash, if the TV deal goes well. After that, it’s all about will.
Does The NRL Want To Expand, Or Does It Just Want To Have More Teams? (forbes.com)


 

flippikat

Bench
Messages
2,739
A good article when we consider adding a third Brisbane club before we actually expand the game (lets be honest more Brisbane clubs isnt 'expanding' its just consolidating what we have.)


Does The NRL Want To Expand, Or Does It Just Want To Have More Teams?

<snip>

The NRL is the living embodiment of the saying "if you're standing still, you're actually going backwards".

The article is right - Brisbane isn't expansion, Central Coast isn't expansion.

Perth would be expansion.
Adelaide would be expansion.

I'd go as far to say as NZ 2 outside of Auckland would be true expansion (as it tries to make a dent into rugby union territory).

This may sound melodramatic, but It's at the point now where if V'Landys doesn't look to take on AFL in AFL-land & rugby union in union-land (aka NZ) I'd swing my support behind a rebel league, if expansionists wanna roll that dice.

No kidding.
 
Messages
3,941
The NRL is the living embodiment of the saying "if you're standing still, you're actually going backwards".

The article is right - Brisbane isn't expansion, Central Coast isn't expansion.

Perth would be expansion.
Adelaide would be expansion.

I'd go as far to say as NZ 2 outside of Auckland would be true expansion (as it tries to make a dent into rugby union territory).

This may sound melodramatic, but It's at the point now where if V'Landys doesn't look to take on AFL in AFL-land & rugby union in union-land (aka NZ) I'd swing my support behind a rebel league, if expansionists wanna roll that dice.

No kidding.
You are absolutely correct. For years I've grown impatient with the ARLC's neglect of the game in the KPIs that matter. The last decade was the perfect time to consolidate and expand, but self-interest from News Ltd, the RLPA, NRL clubs, QRL and NSWRL prevented it from happening. The game was flush with money, but the governing bodies, RLPA and NRL clubs pissed it up a wall to hold onto a dying model.

The ARLC is going to have to make some really tough decisions over the next 10 years. Many of these decisions should have been made in 1998, but self-interest got in the way and now we're close to being in a very perilous situation.

So where to from here?

I think three teams in Brisbane is vital, as it'll lead to more Sunday arvo games that kids can attend. There's no better way of getting a kid hooked on a team than by having them watch the team live. Lions and Suns have all their games broadcast live and free into Brisbane and Gold Coast via 7mate. Broncos and Titans don't have this advantage.

We must expand into NZ. NZ2 has to come soon and, a NZ3 when it's in a position to sustain one should be on the radar so we can have more games played in NZ at child-friendly times.

We also need to expand into Adelaide and Perth.

That's a total of 6 new teams required.

Does Australia and NZ have enough people and money to support 22 teams?

We've got 18 AwFuL clubs, 5 RU clubs, 8 cricket clubs, 11 soccer clubs and 8 netball clubs in Australia competing for sponsors and fans. Our population is about 25 million. Something has to give at some point, especially with most of Australia's population growth coming from countries who've never heard of most of these sports. NZ has 5 RU clubs, 1 soccer club, 1 NBL club and its own cricket, netball and basketball leagues in country that has 5m people.

Can our regional RL clubs survive as the capitals get bigger, or will they fall over and be replaced with teams from Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth?

Three bids from Brisbane. One or two bids from Perth. Surely that's where the 17th, 18th and hopefully a 19th team will come from. 20th team can be NZ 2 if there's enough money for a 10th game, but I doubt we can support more than 18 teams before 2027. That leaves Adelaide and NZ3 on the outer, as I cannot see where the money will come from to support 22 teams. There's only one way to have all 6 teams in a 20 team competition, and it'll involve a process that is taboo on this forum and at ARLC HQ.
 

flippikat

Bench
Messages
2,739
There's only one way to have all 6 teams in a 20 team competition, and it'll involve a process that is taboo on this forum and at ARLC HQ.

*This* is the crux of the matter.

If the NRL wants to expand, we're gonna hit the limits of a workable competition soon - whether it be 18 or 20 teams - and the likelihood is we STILL won't have an optimal trans-Tasman footprint that has a presence in all the big markets AND sufficient derbies where it counts.

Unless we do "the unthinkable".
 

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
43,972
Not sure why people keep lumoing adelaide and perth together? They are poles apart in temr sof support for the game, grassroots and readiness for the NRl
 

mongoose

First Grade
Messages
8,332
A good article when we consider adding a third Brisbane club before we actually expand the game (lets be honest more Brisbane clubs isnt 'expanding' its just consolidating what we have.)


Does The NRL Want To Expand, Or Does It Just Want To Have More Teams?
The size of the National Rugby League (NRL) is something that never seems to be off the agenda. While I am the #NRLOutsider, it’s hardly an issue that I’m unaware of, because it’s also never really off the agenda in the UK either, where we expand and contract like an accordion.
The NRL, however, seems to have a slightly different problem: it expands, but it doesn’t get bigger. Since Melbourne Storm joined the competition in 1998, it hasn’t made any concerted effort to actually increase the footprint of the sport, and given that league supremo Peter V’Landys seems principally concerned with adding another team in Brisbane, it doesn’t seem likely that anything is going to change soon in that regard.
V’Landys confirmed in February that a second Brisbane team would be added to the competition in the very near future, and was bullish about the prospects of putting another outfit to catch the increasing population of South East Queensland.
Given that there is already a huge NRL team in the Brisbane area, plus another one down the road on the Gold Coast, this doesn’t seem to make much sense. Surely, over 30 years after they entered the competition, anyone who moves to the area is going to have heard of the Brisbane Broncos?
The best option, looking at the existing proposals, is that the successful bid is the one from the Ipswich Jets, who could feasibly host an NRL team that doesn’t tread on the Broncos, and could grow in tune with the population, which is slated to double from 200,000 to 400,000 in the next decade or so.
That would take the NRL to 17 teams, and open the door for an 18th to even up the numbers. At this stage, that team might be in Perth, the South Island of New Zealand, Wellington, Adelaide, the Central Coast of New South Wales, Papua New Guinea, Fiji or somewhere else in Queensland. All is contingent on the 2022 TV deal, which could potentially fund any expansion.
Who could be the 18th NRL team?
The frontrunners, according to some in the media, would be the Central Coast Bears, or as you might remember them, the North Sydney Bears. While that would be delightful for those of us with a passion for old suburban grounds and nice retro jerseys, I’m not sure that it is the message that rugby league wants to send the world.

The Central Coast’s argument appears to be based on their prior success in producing players and the fast population growth in the region, which has accelerated since the COVID-19 pandemic as people leave Sydney.

The issue there would be two-fold: one, their juniors, such as Melbourne’s Nicho Hynes and Newcastle Knights’ Saifiti brothers, Daniel and Jacob, are already playing in the NRL for other teams, so the lack of a local options clearly isn’t holding anyone back; and two, literally everyone moving from Sydney has already heard of rugby league, and probably has a team that they follow. That’s not expanding, it’s just having more teams.

The real argument would be for trying to grow the game in a way that hasn’t been attempted since the 1990s. Expansion, that is to say, real expansion, costs a lot of money and takes time and effort. Someone has to be willing to lose money in the short term to gain it back in the long or very long term. Ultimately, only a governing body is likely to take that challenge on.
Deepening the NRL talent pool

As far as arguments against expansion go, they tend to line up around two positions. One is that the talent pool isn’t deep enough, the other is that it would cost too much money for too little gain.

The first is palpably nonsense: if the league expanded to 18 teams, or even 20, they could certainly source more players. I watch plenty of second grade NSW Cup and even third grade Ron Massey Cup, and when NRL players get dropped and have to play at that level, they don’t suddenly start to look like superstars: if anything, the players who truly stand out are the youngsters chomping at the bit to get a change at first grade.

In England, where there has been a multi-divisional system for decades, they regularly source players from lower leagues and give them a go to see if they’re good enough. Given that the Aussie dollar exchange rate with the British pound is now $1.60 (it was once close to $3), the best Super League talent would be far more incentivised to come over than they currently are.

You also have two teams of Melanesians, the Kaiviti Silktails and the PNG Hunters, running around in lower grades waiting for a chance to be signed to the NRL, plus potential to add pathways from Tonga, Samoa and other Pacific nations.

If anything, the problem with player development in the NRL is that there are too many players in pathways that can’t find a gig at the top level, with first grade standard players stuck in second grade waiting for an opportunity.

A secondary line of argument is that an expanded competition would lead to lop-sided results between the established powers and the new teams. Leaving aside that this year’s competition has already cleaved itself into the top five and everyone else, that is more of an issue of allocating better players around the league. Last time I checked, the salary cap is designed to do exactly that, and given a few years and proper enforcement, would.

How the NRL can invite investment via expansion

Let’s run a thought experiment in which, instead of increasing the salary cap by $2m AUD across each team, you take that cash and put it into four new central distribution pots for new clubs to offer around the league, topped up by owners’ franchise fees. If you don’t believe players wouldn’t move to new markets, let me remind you that David Fifita turned down the Broncos to go to the Gold Coast and is currently killing it.

You might not, at first, convince the top earners to move, but you’d get the fourth and fifth. The Rugby League Players Association (RLPA) might object, but realistically, the NRL has never been in a stronger position to negotiate with them given the weakness of rugby union, the traditional destination for disgruntled league players, the poor financial state of the Super League and the unlikelihood, on the back of a season with a long stoppage, that they would resort to a strike. Who knows, perhaps they might even like the idea of gaining another 100 professional rugby league players in their organization?

The financial benefits of an increased media footprint are obvious. If you add teams in Perth and New Zealand, you gain two extra time slots for valuable content, with the potential for a lucrative third match on a Sunday afternoon or evening. You gain new audiences, new media markets and the chance to market to new people that you don’t get by, as the phrase has it, fishing where the fish are.

Currently, nobody in Western Australia has any vested interest in the NRL and the ground is totally ceded to the Australian Football League (AFL) and, criminally, rugby union. In New Zealand, you have a chance to make an indent into rugby union at a time when their national game is moving further and further away from ordinary Kiwis.

Of course, this is easy to say and harder to do. But Peter V’Landys has shown a willingness to take on big tasks before, and is in the unusual position in rugby league of having the political power to take on a big project. He even might even have the cash, if the TV deal goes well. After that, it’s all about will.
Does The NRL Want To Expand, Or Does It Just Want To Have More Teams? (forbes.com)

The article has some good points but Brisbane still needs a second team and it rightly should be a top priority. It's population has nearly doubled since 1988 when the Broncos entered the comp. It's ridiculous that they don't have a 2nd team.
 

MugaB

Bench
Messages
3,597
"Selling the game short since 1994" could be RL administrators moto! They should have it above the doorway at NRLHQ.
It would have been written in solid 24 gold plaque above that doorway, in that multi million dollar HQ.... thanx todd u f**kwit
 

MugaB

Bench
Messages
3,597
Not sure why people keep lumoing adelaide and perth together? They are poles apart in temr sof support for the game, grassroots and readiness for the NRl
Coz thats where the "footprint" should spread to, ala A-league mentality, but its not feasible if they are just another Melbourne Storm stripping the talent out of areas that produce it, its fine as Melbourne are up against AFL in their heartland, but all teams, all need to creating players for the future, to keep all teams sustainable, otherwise why bother going there
 

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
43,972
Coz thats where the "footprint" should spread to, ala A-league mentality, but its not feasible if they are just another Melbourne Storm stripping the talent out of areas that produce it, its fine as Melbourne are up against AFL in their heartland, but all teams, all need to creating players for the future, to keep all teams sustainable, otherwise why bother going there

and yet melbourne are one of the strongest clubs on the field and arguably one of the of the most valuable clubs to the nrl. Producing jnrs isn’t everything, if the heartland states are producing enough talent to furnish the league then it really doesnt matter does it?
 

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
43,972
It would have been written in solid 24 gold plaque above that doorway, in that multi million dollar HQ.... thanx todd u f**kwit

notbthat I have much love for Greenberg but during his reign the game made a $7.4mill loss a $47.1million surplus and a $28.9 mill surplus respectively, whilst club grants went up 80%. Financially he did alright.
 

flippikat

Bench
Messages
2,739
Not sure why people keep lumoing adelaide and perth together? They are poles apart in temr sof support for the game, grassroots and readiness for the NRl

Because they're both big population centres that don't have an NRL team.

Yes, Adelaide isn't as ready as Perth for a top tier team of their own - however it's a city that has to have groundwork started NOW if we wanna capitalize on that market.

You just have to look at the home crowds they pulled in 1997 to realise there's a market there. The shame is that the turmoil of 1998 (poor onfield form, a mid-season change in home ground, and doubts over their continued existence) conspired to butcher any momentum building from that great start.

There's a whole thread here that builds the case for Adelaide, I think it lays out the argument far better than I could in one post.
 
Messages
3,941
*This* is the crux of the matter.

If the NRL wants to expand, we're gonna hit the limits of a workable competition soon - whether it be 18 or 20 teams - and the likelihood is we STILL won't have an optimal trans-Tasman footprint that has a presence in all the big markets AND sufficient derbies where it counts.

Unless we do "the unthinkable".

The selfish part of me says Bris 2 and 3 for the next two licences, but the rational and compassionate side says Brisbane 2 and Perth to make up for what was lost in 1998, but it wouldn't surprise me if they went with Bris 3 instead of Perth.

Maybe they could strengthen RL in Brisbane by adding the Dolphins and having the Easts Tigers team up with the Broncos to become a super club that has bases on both sides of the river and represents all of the City of Brisbane and the City of Logan. Easts Leagues were running Broncos Leagues a few years ago, so there's a connection between the two. The new team would retain the name Brisbane Broncos, but change their colour to gold, black and blue. Black shorts, gold jersey with a blue "v" to represent the Brisbane River. Easts Leagues already makes more money than Broncos Leagues. The Brisbane Tigers QUEENSLAND CUP team could also rebrand to Brisbane Broncos and be based out of Coorparoo.

West Coast Pirates to be the 18th team.

Moreton Bay Dolphins would be a great asset if they represented Moreton Bay Regional Council and Redland City Council, and possibly work out some sort of affiliation with the Sunshine Coast Falcons and Wynnum Manly Seagulls.

A bit off topic but relevant as it relates to the last time game was going to expand to 18 teams, but I was surprised to learn that in 1990 there were bids from Adelaide, Auckland, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, Townsville and Wellington for inclusion in the NSWRL, which was going to expand to 18 teams. Wellington Dolphins, dropped out, as did the two proposed Melbourne bids, one of which was from St Kilda. Nothing came of the one from Adelaide. Auckland were the first to be accepted on 18 May 1993. North Queensland were at the bottom of the pile, with the QRL backing the Crushers and Kerry Packer's Ch9 wanting the Perth Pumas due to the added value from the time slot they would add. They admitted all four after Arthurson phoned Quayle and said why not add all four?

Cowboys were forced to cover their own travel expenses as well as all expenses of other teams who travelled to Townsville, totalling about $800k a year. No wonder the club joined Super League.

Possible names for the NQ bid included Bunyips, Taipans, Crocodiles, Canetoads, Cane Cutters, Mudcrabs, Cyclones, Redbacks, Ringers, Scud Missiles, Emus, Cassowaries, Roos. Crocodiles was the most popular name, but a local RU club who called themselves that objected, so the committee headed by Boustead went with Cowboys. People hated the word "Cowboys" because they thought it was too Americanised.
 
Last edited:

flippikat

Bench
Messages
2,739
I was surprised to learn that in 1990 there were bids from Adelaide, Auckland, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, Townsville and Wellington for inclusion in the NSWRL, which was going to expand to 18 teams. Wellington Dolphins, dropped out, as did the two proposed Melbourne bids, one of which was from St Kilda. Nothing came of the one from Adelaide.

.

I remember at the time there was a huge buzz of excitement that the competition was casting for bids.

If the NRL right now honestly opened their doors to all offers (not just limited to SE Queensland), I think we'd get some seriously compelling proposals.

The trick then would be to pick the best of the bunch, and project manage the timetable for their debut.

In hindsight, the problem with 1995 was that it was maybe just too damn ambitious to do it all at once, and a staggered approach could have worked better.. and maybe opened windows for Melbourne & Adelaide (by expansion or relocation) along the way.

If Brisbane 2 is a given for team 17, the lessons from 1995 need to be kept in mind for the following steps.
 
Top