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

Quidgybo

Bench
Messages
3,022
If Brisbane 2 is a given for team 17, the lessons from 1995 need to be kept in mind for the following steps.
In general I think the wrong lessons were taken from the 1995 expansion. The prevailing narrative has been that the game can barely support 16 teams in terms of depth and finances, Rugby League failed in Perth and that Brisbane can’t support two or more teams. That’s a Super League and later an NRL Partnership narrative.

The real lesson is the obvious one - don’t expand by FOUR new teams AT ONCE. There’s nothing wrong with planning for four new teams and nurturing bids in target areas, but at least give it a couple seasons for each new team to get on its feet. Provide some breathing space for each team to build a squad and let the rest of the league and the player pool digest the change.

More realistically, a 17th team followed by an 18th two to three seasons later, followed by a 19th four or five seasons after that, and then a 20th two to three seasons later still gives four need teams in just a decade or so. That’d be ambitious by most measures in top grade professional sport. But four at once was kinda courting trouble…
 
Last edited:

flippikat

Bench
Messages
2,739
In general I think the wrong lessons were taken from the 1995 expansion. The prevailing narrative has been that the game can barely support 16 teams in terms of depth and finances, Rugby League failed in Perth and that Brisbane can’t support two or more teams. That’s a Super League and later an NRL Partnership narrative.

Precisely, the harsh limit of 14 or 16 teams is stunting the game.

18 or 20 teams is do-able, with a balanced geographical spread, talent equalization measures & sustainable funding models.

There were some big factors in 1995-2003 that actually served to make the NRL extremely risk-averse.

The real lesson is the obvious one - don’t expand by FOUR new teams AT ONCE.

...and that was the first one. It's very rare for a sports league to expand THAT MUCH all at once. The only instance I can think of that's not "absorbing a rebel league" is when the NHL went from 6 to 12 teams in 1967.

It's just too much to take on all at once.

Add to that, the expansion teams had major set-up flaws (travel costs for away teams shouldered by Reds & Cowboys), and the rushed creation & subsequent dismantling of the Rams.

Add to that shotgun mergers, a failed relocation, and a knee-jerk GC expansion when the NRL got spooked by AFL sniffing around the area, and I can understand years of paralysis, but it can't be delayed or deferred any longer now.
 

MugaB

Bench
Messages
3,597
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.
By spending double the amount of what he could have put into other areas of the whole league, seriously there was too many folk at HQ, sitting on their arse getting overpaid, and as Apollo showed the game basically doesnt need them all, and one ref is better than 2, as international games proved in years past.
The sliming down at head office, and at the clubs, punting wrestling coaches.
This is all contributing factors as to why the game can expand, where the previous ceos couldnt fathom the cost of another team.

As for Melbourne being successful without producing juniors, thats great, but we can't have a Perth and Adelaide team also doing that, the league can sustain 1 Melbourne team doing that not all 3. Like i said im happy for Melbourne to do that as they are up against 9 ALF clubs there. but anywhere else should have that discount.
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,941
By spending double the amount of what he could have put into other areas of the whole league, seriously there was too many folk at HQ, sitting on their arse getting overpaid, and as Apollo showed the game basically doesnt need them all, and one ref is better than 2, as international games proved in years past.
The sliming down at head office, and at the clubs, punting wrestling coaches.
This is all contributing factors as to why the game can expand, where the previous ceos couldnt fathom the cost of another team.

As for Melbourne being successful without producing juniors, thats great, but we can't have a Perth and Adelaide team also doing that, the league can sustain 1 Melbourne team doing that not all 3. Like i said im happy for Melbourne to do that as they are up against 9 ALF clubs there. but anywhere else should have that discount.
It will be interesting to see what happens to Melbourne's fanbase and national ratings when Bris 2 are admitted. I think their supporter base in SEQ will take a major hit over the next 20 years.

If Melbourne's recruitment and development system of juniors from NSW, NZ and QLD declines then they will end up falling down the ladder. I'd like to know how loyal their fanbase will be if their team is like the modern day Canterbury Bulldogs.

ARLC really needs to focus on developing the game at the grassroots level across the country if it wants to see meaningful results.
 

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
43,972
By spending double the amount of what he could have put into other areas of the whole league, seriously there was too many folk at HQ, sitting on their arse getting overpaid, and as Apollo showed the game basically doesnt need them all, and one ref is better than 2, as international games proved in years past.
The sliming down at head office, and at the clubs, punting wrestling coaches.
This is all contributing factors as to why the game can expand, where the previous ceos couldnt fathom the cost of another team.

As for Melbourne being successful without producing juniors, thats great, but we can't have a Perth and Adelaide team also doing that, the league can sustain 1 Melbourne team doing that not all 3. Like i said im happy for Melbourne to do that as they are up against 9 ALF clubs there. but anywhere else should have that discount.

we don’t yet know what effect the cuts have had. Yep being call for one ref for years so that was a good call. The cutting of the other areas only time will tell if it impacts on revenue generation ability and quality of product long term. For example the integrity unit was slashed, sounds good in the paper but if we find out in years to come that it has meant clubs rorting the cap as the unit didn’t have the resources to police properly then is it a good saving? No doubt nrlhq got fat on the massive revenue generation but you have to look at the data, not just ch9’s media beat up, to see where the expenditure increase went. End of day even with the expenditure Greenberg had the nrl making significant surpluses and putting away money for club bail outs etc.
 

Quidgybo

Bench
Messages
3,022
...and that was the first one.
Well yeah, don’t have a code wide civil war funded by greedy billionaires is the other big lesson. You don’t need to search any further to explain the demise of Reds and Crushers (and everything else). But drawing lessons beyond that about the game’s prospects in Perth and Brisbane from that time is drawing a very long bow.
 
Messages
4,993
In general I think the wrong lessons were taken from the 1995 expansion. The prevailing narrative has been that the game can barely support 16 teams in terms of depth and finances, Rugby League failed in Perth and that Brisbane can’t support two or more teams. That’s a Super League and later an NRL Partnership narrative.

The real lesson is the obvious one - don’t expand by FOUR new teams AT ONCE. There’s nothing wrong with planning for four new teams and nurturing bids in target areas, but at least give it a couple seasons for each new team to get on its feet. Provide some breathing space for each team to build a squad and let the rest of the league and the player pool digest the change.

More realistically, a 17th team followed by an 18th two to three seasons later, followed by a 19th four or five seasons after that, and then a 20th two to three seasons later still gives four need teams in just a decade or so. That’d be ambitious by most measures in top grade professional sport. But four at once was kinda courting trouble…
It's not about the number of teams, it's about the feasibility of the teams coming in.

The NHL famously expanded by 6 teams in 67-68, doubling the size of the competition overnight. Only one of those teams failed, the rest make up some of the most successful teams in the world.

The difference between the NHL in 67-68 and the NSWRL/ARL in 95 was that not one of the teams that the NSWRL gave a license to was actually in a financial position to support the team while they set it up. In other words, through poor management the NSWRL set those clubs up to fail, and odds are that if SL didn't happen then all of them would have gone broke within a decade anyway (assuming nothing unpredictable happened). In fact if anything the SL war saved the Cowboys and, to lesser extent, Warriors.

So expanding by large numbers all at once is possible if you do it right, and even if the NSWRL had only picked two of the Crushers, Reds, Warriors, or Cowboys in 1995, those teams still would have struggled because none of them were economically sound enough to support a team.
 
Messages
4,993
Well yeah, don’t have a code wide civil war funded by greedy billionaires is the other big lesson. You don’t need to search any further to explain the demise of Reds and Crushers (and everything else).
That's simply not true.

Both the Reds and Crushers were zombies before SL had even really kicked off.

The Reds were effectively done as soon as the NSWRL forced them to field a team in reserve grade, and thus have to pay for the travel and accommodation for two visiting teams every second week on top of their own travel expenses.

The Crushers simply didn't have the money to pull off what they were trying to achieve, and frankly only got the license because there was QRL involvement. I mean they petitioned the NSWRL for a loan to avoid bankruptcy before they'd even played a game.

Now you can say that if SL didn't happened then things might have gone differently, and sure it's possible that rich benefactors could have saved them (like the Warriors incidentally), or whatever, but at that point you would have been banking on a one in a million to save them.
 
Top