Where will the NRL be in 2030?

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

** Takeover all of North Sydney, rebrand, and look to relocate to a new stadium more central to NS if possible (which it may or may not be). That will probably require a new owner and/or the NRL taking over, but a team in Northern Sydney is too important to lose.

I like this idea. North Sydney Sea Eagles is a good name.

I think you are talking about Moana Pasifika, whom are bidding to join Super Rugby Aotearoa, and are infinitely more feasible than the South Pacific Cyclones.

Their goal is to be a team that mainly represents the sizable "Pasifika" minority in NZ, particularly, but not exclusively, Tongans and Samoans. They'd be based in Auckland, play all of their games apart from the odd exhibition game in Auckland, and are designed to create a professional pathway for Islanders and Polynesian players whom don't want to represent the All Blacks. In other words they basically want to be NZ's answer to Celtic before the Irish minority assimilated into the population in Glasgow.

Moana Pasifika should scare the shit of the NRL, and RL more generally, because if it works (which admittedly is a big if) it'd hit RL right in two of it's most important markets in NZ and the Pacific; South Auckland (i.e. the Warriors strongest market) and Rugby players from the Islands that want to go pro and make a good living, but also want the option to represent their country of choice over the All Blacks.

In other words if Moana Pasifika works, and again that's a big if but not impossible, it'd kill RL's growth on the ground in at least Samoa and Tonga and it'd eat into the Warriors main market overnight, which would be a big hit for RL in the region.

The same is true of the Fiji Drua. If they can make it as a fulltime professional team in Super Rugby Aotearoa it'd murder all the growth that RL has made in Fiji over the past decade and a half and it'd force the NRL to take a much more expensive boots on the ground approach to compete in Fiji. That's an even bigger if though.

PNG and New Caledonia should be our main focus in the Pacific. Invest in the infrastructure of the game in these countries and it'll pay dividends in the long run. New Caledonia want to play in the Queensland Cup and their bid is backed by French RL.

 

[flippikat]

You think anything above 20 teams means the introduction of conferences?

also agree about Christchurch being NZ2 franchise. Population of over 600k by 2030 and a decent stadium with a great name “rugby league park”

I think with 20 teams, we could see a setup where each team plays everyone else once (19 rounds), then 4 or 5 of the teams twice (to make a regular season of 23 or 24 rounds).

The teams you play twice *could* be the same teams each season, with a view to strengthen rivalries and as a primer for a more formal conference/division system if we get beyond 20 teams... although it's possible that you could have an NRL of 24 teams with everyone just playing each other once (23 rounds).. the only drawback being "no return matches".

As for the Christchurch expansion.. it's likely that by the time they have an NRL club of their own, the new covered stadium in the city centre will have been built - so the NRL team would likely play out of that & not the old Rugby League Park that was hastily revamped as a temporary ground post-earthquake. It was only ever supposed to be a temporary solution.. the fact it's still being used for Super Rugby is just due to delays in getting the new stadium built.

As an aside, we NEED more covered rectangular stadia over here, because TV (especially Australian TV) likes us having twilight/night games as lead-in to your early evening games, but the harsh NZ winter makes it a lousy prospect for drawing crowds. Ideally, Auckland needs to demolish Eden Park & Mt Smart to replace them with ONE decent covered rectangular stadium in the central city (cricket can go to it's own oval).. then we can look at similar plans for Hamilton & Wellington. Sell any surplus land from the rebuild to developers for housing/apartments/offices/shopping developments/entertainment precincts & use that money towards the new stadium build.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

You’d surely get that and already have that with the names of the cities of Auckland and Christchurch wouldn’t you?

I’m only a fan of calling a team other than the name of the city/town if the city/town is too small population wise but Auckland will have a population of around 1.8 million by 2030 and Christchurch will be just over 600,000 which is big enough as a stand-alone name.

Isn't there a strong hatred for Auckland by the rest of NZers?

Auckland and Christchurch would be great for those two cities. I just think we've got an opportunity to create a SOO like feel by having North Island vs South Island and appeal to a wider group of people over a larger catchment. North could play some games in Wellington and South could take a few games to other cities on South Island.

Dribble. The majority of this city won't care about that and if anything will be put off by it's attempts to be English, not Australian.

You're probably right, but what are the chances of Adelaide getting a team of its own?

There isn't even a bid from the region.

The VFL spread to Brisbane 4 years before Adelaide, despite fumbleball's long history in SA. A few Victorian teams were linked with Brisbane before the Bears entered the VFL. Richmond and Lions were two of them.

 

[flippikat]

Isn't there a strong hatred for Auckland by the rest of NZers?

Auckland and Christchurch would be great for those two cities. I just think we've got an opportunity to create a SOO like feel by having North Island vs South Island and appeal to a wider group of people over a larger catchment. North could play some games in Wellington and South could take a few games to other cities on South Island.

Splitting NZ in two, for two NRL clubs poses a dilemma.

Do you split the country geographically or in a more population-even manner?

North Island (population approx 4 million) vs South Island (approx 1 million) is a clean geographical split, but uneven in potential supporter base.

Auckland vs "Rest of NZ" is still approx 1 million vs 4 million as far as population goes - even if you include ALL parts north of the Bombay Hills (including Whangarei, Northland right up to the cape).

A fairer split may be:
* Warriors area from Taupo north - including Auckland, Northland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty (basically Blues & Chiefs Super Rugby area minus Taranaki & New Plymouth)

* New Southern team (Kea?) - bottom of North Island (Taranaki, Hawkes Bay, Manawatu, Wellington, Wairarapa), plus ALL of the South Island.

One team based in Auckland, one in Christchurch.

Warriors taking a pre-season game each year to Whangarei & one home game to Hamilton, one home game to Rotorua or New Plymouth.

Southern team taking a pre-season game to Napier or Palmerston North, and a 1 regular season game to Wellington and 1 regular season game to Dunedin.

Then a few years later, carve off the "bottom of North Island" for it's own team, meaning 3 NZ NRL teams- Warriors (Taupo north, top half of NI), Orcas (Bottom half of NI) & Kea (South Island). Sorted.

 

[MugaB]

Splitting NZ in two, for two NRL clubs poses a dilemma.

Do you split the country geographically or in a more population-even manner?

North Island (population approx 4 million) vs South Island (approx 1 million) is a clean geographical split, but uneven in potential supporter base.

Auckland vs "Rest of NZ" is still approx 1 million vs 4 million as far as population goes - even if you include ALL parts north of the Bombay Hills (including Whangarei, Northland right up to the cape).

A fairer split may be:
* Warriors area from Taupo north - including Auckland, Northland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Taranaki (basically Blues & Chiefs Super Rugby area)
* New Southern team - bottom of North Island (Hawkes Bay, Manawatu, Wellington, Wairarapa), plus ALL of the South Island.

One team based in Auckland, one in Christchurch.

Warriors taking a pre-season game each year to Whangarei & one home game to Hamilton, one home game to Rotorua.

Southern team taking a pre-season game to Napier or Palmerston North, and a 1 regular season game to Wellington and 1 regular season game to Dunedin.

The reason i brought up an pacifika team based in Auckland, does 3 things, it creates a rivalry with the warriors, creates a pathway that represents island teams, with a few one off games being played by that team in fiji, tonga samoa, every year can generate more exhibition type game, (but can never be based in any one city other than Auckland) its like creating a Country NSW team? Where would it be based?
And 3rdly it makes league the weekly fixture in Auckland,
A third team expansion in Christchurch or Wellington can come later once the popularity of the weekly Auckland game takes off, as it stands creating a south island team only creates a rivalry, but its not a big enough population to justify it compared to Aucklands larger population, who you could argue has enough to have 2 teams with 1.7m, and fiji who are at around 900k, also can sustain a team with its population, compared to Wellingtons and Christchurchis 400k each

 

[flippikat]

The reason i brought up an pacifika team based in Auckland, does 3 things, it creates a rivalry with the warriors, creates a pathway that represents island teams, with a few one off games being played by that team in fiji, tonga samoa, every year can generate more exhibition type game, (but can never be based in any one city other than Auckland) its like creating a Country NSW team? Where would it be based?
And 3rdly it makes league the weekly fixture in Auckland,
A third team expansion in Christchurch or Wellington can come later once the popularity of the weekly Auckland game takes off, as it stands creating a south island team only creates a rivalry, but its not a big enough population to justify it compared to Aucklands larger population, who you could argue has enough to have 2 teams with 1.7m, and fiji who are at around 900k, also can sustain a team with its population, compared to Wellingtons and Christchurchis 400k each

The Warriors are already close to a de facto Pasifica team.. the support base skews hugely to the Polynesian community. Setting up an actual Pasifica team risks just switching the existing Warriors supporter base.

IMO it's better to *expand* the game's footprint than create a crosstown rivalry there (either along geographical or ethnic/cultural lines), as I honestly don't believe Auckland can sustain two NRL clubs. Brisbane, yes.. Melbourne (given time) maybe.. Perth (once a first club is established, for a guaranteed late slot) possibly.. but not Auckland. Plus, a guaranteed NZ timeslot (say, 8pm NZ, 6pm Sydney on a Friday night, every week) can be achieved by basing a 2nd NZ team anywhere over here.

Better to broaden the reach of top tier RL to somewhere else in NZ, and Christchurch's facilities in 5 years time will be FAR superior to Auckland.. and there's a rusted-on rivalry already.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

The reason i brought up an pacifika team based in Auckland, does 3 things, it creates a rivalry with the warriors, creates a pathway that represents island teams, with a few one off games being played by that team in fiji, tonga samoa, every year can generate more exhibition type game, (but can never be based in any one city other than Auckland) its like creating a Country NSW team? Where would it be based?
And 3rdly it makes league the weekly fixture in Auckland,
A third team expansion in Christchurch or Wellington can come later once the popularity of the weekly Auckland game takes off, as it stands creating a south island team only creates a rivalry, but its not a big enough population to justify it compared to Aucklands larger population, who you could argue has enough to have 2 teams with 1.7m, and fiji who are at around 900k, also can sustain a team with its population, compared to Wellingtons and Christchurchis 400k each

All good points. I would take at least 2 games a year to Port Moresby, to reward its people for being the most loyal RL fans in the world. It will show our code has something that soccer, RU and fumbleball do not.

I'm not sold on Fiji. They produce quality outside backs who eventually go back to RU. They're just using the NRL to get an RU contract in Stupid Rugby or French RU. Focus on developing players from larger countries, like PNG, that love our game and will never go over to RU.

NZ is a key market for the NRL. We need more teams there if we ever want to bridge the gap between RU and RL. A second team is a must so that there is a game played in NZ every week, at prime time.

 

[The Great Dane]

A little digging around finds that both the pasifika side and Fijian side aren’t done deals yet with both of them being snubbed for the 2021 season and nothing concrete for 2022.

That's true, however it's only a matter of time before Mona Pasifika, or a similar bid, gets a Super Rugby license.

On the other hand, the Dura getting a license in Super Rugby Aotearoa isn't set in stone, and another bid could pip them at the post.

Personally I think the NRL should invest big time in Fiji as it’s a goldmine of rugby talent. I’d even go as far as buying Fiji RU out by raiding their junior rep teams and 7’s team.

I think that the NRL can't afford to seriously invest in any of the PI's (with the exception of NZ and possibly PNG in the future), and they should do everything in their power to try and keep the current symbiotic relationship they have with the PI's going for as long as possible.

If you look at the Australian grassroots the sport is in a very bad place. If you take out touch/tag and female numbers, participation numbers in the most important categories (i.e. males in general) are at best stagnate and at worst are declining depending on where you are in the country. In other words if nothing is done to boost the sport's grassroots across Australia then in a generation or so there'll be less Australian NRL quality players then there are now and that will have massive negative impacts on the sport across the board.

The only way you can change that trend is by investing heavily in the grassroots in Australia and by creating more opportunities in the sport locally, particularly in the lower tiers. Every investment internationally, every international team in the Q cup and NSW cup, etc, etc, directly hinders that goal as it eats up resources that can and should be spent in Australia first and makes it more expensive to run local clubs, particularly in the bush, that are desperately needed to turn the tide.

In other words the NRL shouldn't be out helping others put out fires while their own house is burning down.

 

[flippikat]

All good points. I would take at least 2 games a year to Port Moresby, to reward its people for being the most loyal RL fans in the world. It will show our code has something that soccer, RU and fumbleball do not.

NZ is a key market for the NRL. We need more teams there if we ever want to bridge the gap between RU and RL. A second team is a must so that there is a game played in NZ every week, at prime time.

Great points, and I think every NRL team should adopt a secondary market to take 1-2 games there per season.

For PNG, this could mean the Cowboys (for instance) taking a game or 2 there each year. At the moment, such "home away from home" arrangements are ad hoc, and club-driven.. but it NEEDS better planning & co-ordination - and a decent level of commitment.. like how AFL clubs like Hawthorne locked in home games in Tasmania.

As for the 2nd NZ team, we can bring two huge game-changers to the NRL - guaranteed early timeslot every week, and (once Christchurch have their new covered stadium) a team based in an indoor stadium, which improves the conditions for players AND game day experience for fans.. and might spur Australia to consider more enclosed stadia in the future - Canberra obviously to begin with, but other locations too.

 

[The Great Dane]

PNG and New Caledonia should be our main focus in the Pacific. Invest in the infrastructure of the game in these countries and it'll pay dividends in the long run. New Caledonia want to play in the Queensland Cup and their bid is backed by French RL.

NSW cup teams in places like the CC, Tamworth, Goulburn, Coffs Harbour, etc, etc, would unironically be significantly better investments for the sport than either PNG or New Caledonia, and the more teams you have in places like PNG and New Caledonia the more prohibitively expensive and unlikely you make that growth at home.

We need local solutions to local problems, and that includes in the PI's.

 

[The Great Dane]

Great points, and I think every NRL team should adopt a secondary market to take 1-2 games there per season.

For PNG, this could mean the Cowboys (for instance) taking a game or 2 there each year. At the moment, such "home away from home" arrangements are ad hoc, and club-driven.. but it NEEDS better planning & co-ordination - and a decent level of commitment.. like how AFL clubs like Hawthorne locked in home games in Tasmania.

As for the 2nd NZ team, we can bring two huge game-changers to the NRL - guaranteed early timeslot every week, and (once Christchurch have their new covered stadium) a team based in an indoor stadium, which improves the conditions for players AND game day experience for fans.. and might spur Australia to consider more enclosed stadia in the future - Canberra obviously to begin with, but other locations too.

What is people's fascination with teams taking up a second home!

All it achieves in the long run is pissing everybody off (home fans, people from the secondary market, the governments in both cities, etc, etc) and it has no long term impact for the sports grassroots locally. Once the team goes all the benefits go, and sooner or later the team always goes!

In other words all they are is blatant tokenism, and worse than that they are snake oil because the tokenism doesn't even achieve any of what people insist that it does.

If you want to have a real impact for the sport on the ground in these cities and/or countries then as I said before you need a local solution to a local problem.

 

[flippikat]

NSW cup teams in places like the CC, Tamworth, Goulburn, Coffs Harbour, etc, etc, would unironically be significantly better investments for the sport than either PNG or New Caledonia, and the more teams you have in places like PNG and New Caledonia the more prohibitively expensive and unlikely you make that growth at home.

We need local solutions to local problems, and that includes in the PI's.

It's about time the NSW Cup decided what it wants to be - does it wanna be a de facto reserve grade for NSW-based NRL clubs, or does it wanna be a truly statewide 2nd tier, akin to what the Qld Cup is?

Part of the puzzle is the NRL itself, and how it handles fringe players.

I'm inclined to push for an actual NRL reserve grade to come back, with the state leagues being kept for local youngsters coming up, journeyman local club players, and players "on loan" from NRL reserve grade squads, if not required.

Whether that's workable, or even viable.. I don't know.

 

[JCK98]

The VFL spread to Brisbane 4 years before Adelaide, despite fumbleball's long history in SA. A few Victorian teams were linked with Brisbane before the Bears entered the VFL. Richmond and Lions were two of them.

The VFL wanted licence fees at the time because they were broke from stealing SANFL and WAFL players. The SANFL was financially stable (even if they started a player retention lottery to keep players) and told the VFL to piss off because their fee was too high. The WAFL was willing to let them set up a side in Perth, which was placed on the stock market to get the licence fee (the club then failed and the WAFL took over). Brisbane (well Carrara) got a side because tax cheat Christopher Skase bankrolled it, eventually went to a member owned structure after another private owner kept losing millions on them.

Adelaide eventually got a team because the VFL tried to poach the biggest SANFL team Port Adelaide and the SANFL got a better deal after going to court.

 

[Styles clash]

A proposed Pasifika team in Super Rugby based in New Zealand may be presented as "growing the game in the Pacific Islands" but its real reason for existing would be to maintain NZR hegemony over RA. Which is quite different to why the NRL would create a team.

Papua New Guinea is a poor country and more to the point has a poor population which won't generate much revenue for the NRL. It's not getting a team. Local officials and politicians talk it up because they know they'll never have to follow through.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Great points, and I think every NRL team should adopt a secondary market to take 1-2 games there per season.

For PNG, this could mean the Cowboys (for instance) taking a game or 2 there each year. At the moment, such "home away from home" arrangements are ad hoc, and club-driven.. but it NEEDS better planning & co-ordination - and a decent level of commitment.. like how AFL clubs like Hawthorne locked in home games in Tasmania.

As for the 2nd NZ team, we can bring two huge game-changers to the NRL - guaranteed early timeslot every week, and (once Christchurch have their new covered stadium) a team based in an indoor stadium, which improves the conditions for players AND game day experience for fans.. and might spur Australia to consider more enclosed stadia in the future - Canberra obviously to begin with, but other locations too.

The Friday 6pm game would be ideal for NZ 1 and 2 as it would be 8pm NZST.

Until that happens, whoever is allotted the Friday 6pm game should take it to NZ. If the Warriors were to play as the away team in this slot then NZ would be getting 24 games a year.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

The VFL wanted licence fees at the time because they were broke from stealing SANFL and WAFL players. The SANFL was financially stable (even if they started a player retention lottery to keep players) and told the VFL to piss off because their fee was too high. The WAFL was willing to let them set up a side in Perth, which was placed on the stock market to get the licence fee (the club then failed and the WAFL took over). Brisbane (well Carrara) got a side because tax cheat Christopher Skase bankrolled it, eventually went to a member owned structure after another private owner kept losing millions on them.

Adelaide eventually got a team because the VFL tried to poach the biggest SANFL team Port Adelaide and the SANFL got a better deal after going to court.

Great post. VFL's expansion was definitely brought on by necessity, albeit one that has paid dividends for them in the long term.

The 80s and 90s were a tough time for the football codes. VFL and NSWRL went from semi-professionalism to professional competitions in the 80s and the weaker teams were left behind in the 90s.

I was surprised to see NZ and Gold Coast put in a bid for a team in the VFL.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

It's about time the NSW Cup decided what it wants to be - does it wanna be a de facto reserve grade for NSW-based NRL clubs, or does it wanna be a truly statewide 2nd tier, akin to what the Qld Cup is?

Part of the puzzle is the NRL itself, and how it handles fringe players.

I'm inclined to push for an actual NRL reserve grade to come back, with the state leagues being kept for local youngsters coming up, journeyman local club players, and players "on loan" from NRL reserve grade squads, if not required.

Whether that's workable, or even viable.. I don't know.

Sydney's NRL clubs should not be fielding their own teams in the NSW Cup. It should be reserved for places like Tweed Heads Seagulls, Central Coast, South Coast, Wentworthville, North Sydney Bears, Illawarra Steelers, Newtown Jets and the places @The Great Dane listed.

 

[Travitoh]

You're probably right, but what are the chances of Adelaide getting a team of its own?

There isn't even a bid from the region.

The VFL spread to Brisbane 4 years before Adelaide, despite fumbleball's long history in SA. A few Victorian teams were linked with Brisbane before the Bears entered the VFL. Richmond and Lions were two of them.

When has Adelaide ever been encouraged to put in a bid? The Rams were taken away because the league just couldn't be arsed despite arguably being stronger than some of the Sydney suburban teams. It's taken 20 years for the games recovery in Adelaide to begin.

Dropping in a part time expansion team a couple of times a year won't fix anything.

The VFL not having an Adelaide team had nothing to do with their lack of interest in the state. It was due to the rivalry between VFL and SANFL.

 

[The Great Dane]

When has Adelaide ever been encouraged to put in a bid? The Rams were taken away because the league just couldn't be arsed despite arguably being stronger than some of the Sydney suburban teams. It's taken 20 years for the games recovery in Adelaide to begin.

There's no arguably about it. The Rams were definitely in a better financial position when they folded than multiple Sydney clubs that survived were in.

People go on and on about the loss of the second Brisbane team and the Reds, and rightly so to a degree, but really the great shame was the death of the Rams and Chargers both of whom had money in the bank when they folded.

 

[The Great Dane]

Sydney's NRL clubs should not be fielding their own teams in the NSW Cup. It should be reserved for places like Tweed Heads Seagulls, Central Coast, South Coast, Wentworthville, North Sydney Bears, Illawarra Steelers, Newtown Jets and the places @The Great Dane listed.

Yep, an NRL reserve grade will just tie even more of the best talent to the NRL clubs and make it that much harder to run viable clubs in the lower tiers, which in turn will make the sport even more top heavy which is probably it's biggest problem.

There's nothing wrong with NRL clubs partnering with lower tier clubs and using them as a de facto reserve grade (like MLB teams partnering with minor league teams). It works perfectly well, it's cheaper for both the NRL club and lower tier club, and it frees up talent that could be better used elsewhere.