Why little mention of the CQ NRL bid?

[bobmar28]

WA Reds next then QLD.

 

[Goddo]

I disagree. Queensland is a RL stronghold that's majorly under-represented in the current competition (as is New Zealand, now the Warriors are running well)

I personally believe that the next expansion round will be Perth & one Queensland team... now as to WHERE in Queensland, that's the huge question!

I'd contend that Queensland needs 2 more sides, one in the Ipswich-Logan corridor, and another to the north, a Sunshine Coast club.

This adds sides to the Brisbane metro area, important for attendences, sponsors and tv ratings, without encroaching on the Broncos dominant brand in Brisbane proper. It also targets areas where there will be enormous population growth over the next 30 years - Queensland will surpass Victoria as the second most populous state, and how many AFL clubs will there be in Victoria relative to NSW and Queensland?

In terms of QRL Cup club affiliations, it would look something like:

North Queensland: Cairns, Mackay
Ipswich-Logan: Ipswich, Souths Logan
Gold Coast: Burleigh, Tweed Heads
Sunshine Coast: Sunshine Coast, Redcliffe
Brisbane: Norths, Wynnum-Manly, Rockhampton
Melbourne: Easts

Forget codewars, if we simply tap into Perth (4th largest city) and increase the representation by population in Queensland we win. There is no war - The AFLs market is shrinking relative to the NRLs. Holding our ground in NSW and Qld and looking at one or two big cities in AFL states is all the NRL needs to do.

---

Looking at the balance of clubs in the NRL as a whole and the structure of the competition at 18 and 20 clubs, we currently have:

10 NSW (8.5 in Sydney, + 0.5 Wollongong + 1 Newcastle)
1 ACT
1 VIC
3 QLD (1 in Brisbane, 2 regional)
1 NZ

To that it would be reasonable to add two clubs in Queensland, and one in Perth, New Zealand (Wellington most likely), and maybe Adelaide. The Central Coast is simply a distribution problem within NSW - something that needs to be addressed, possibly by a (maybe interstate) relocation.

 

[Perth Tiger]

Couldn't agree more Goddo. A set up like that place the comp in a very good position for the next 20-30 years

 

[Quidgybo]

If Manly chose to pursue the Sunshine Coast option and Cronulla could be persuaded that a better future lay in Wellington, then with the addition of the Bears and Reds I think we would have a setup that almost completely satisfies the game's short and medium term requirements. Both within the greater Sydney region and more nationally across Australia and New Zealand.

That'd allow for a very stable 18 team comp that the game could consolidate around for quite a number of years. The remaining Sydney clubs (incuding the Bears) would be left with room to grow and keep pace with the growth of the one city teams, the pressing need to provide greater TV content for the Qld and NZ markets would be satisfied, and future markets could be allowed to mature without any real rush to bring anyone in or cut the pie further.

But then none of this line of thought helps the CQ bid one iota. And of course there's no reason either the Sea Eagles or the Sharks should remotely entertain such ideas without serious incentives from the League and the respective governments in the target areas. Even then, while their fans remain engaged and willing to financially support the clubs there's no reason they should abandon their existing homes.

Leigh

 

[Goddo]

You are right quidgybo.

But there is no scope to force a relocation, unless a club was in such a bad way that it fell at the mercy of the NRL, but unless that happens, there will be no relocation.

In the current circumstances, the best thing the NRL can do is try to shift a Sydney club with big incentives to either Queensland, Wellington or the Central Coast, and/or award licences to SE Qld and Perth. Which is the most likely outcome.

 

[Quidgybo]

Let's assume for the moment that the League sees it as highly undesirable to stretch beyond 18 franchises for at least the next 20 years. And let's assume that the shorter term needs of the game call for expansion into Perth, another team in Queensland, and another team in New Zealand. However you cut it, we'd be talking some sort of redistribution of existing franchises.

The big problem is that even if the League has a strategic goal along these lines, how does it get there? Which combination of two expansion licenses correctly complement an unpredictable future of relocations if left to natural attrition? How does it achieve the desired redistribution of existing licenses without being seen as attacking specific clubs or trying to kill them? I don't have the answers. I doubt anyone does at this stage.

Leigh

 

[Goddo]

It all depends on who moves - where to and when.

 

[legend]

Manly had a pathetic semi final crowd and I doubt the Sharks would have done much better. Manly have the worst home ground in the NRL and again, the Sharks not much better.

Sydney is probably overcrowded and Manly moving to the Sunshine Coast would be a great start to alleviate congestion in Sydney.

I would love to see a team in CQ personally. A regional side that would flourish for decades IMO.

 

[Quidgybo]

It all depends on who moves - where to and when.

Well that's the key unknowable. If the League wants to issue two new franchises no later than early 2013 for a 2015 entry, how do they get certainty on who is moving where and when before then? Again, especially without being seen as too proactive and depriving existing clubs the right to self determination? A forced relocation of a club that hasn't accepted the need to go doesn't really help anyone.

Leigh.

 

[smithie]

Before the NRL looks at expansion, a plan for the redistribution of Sydney clubs must be created and implemented. There must be a clear and concise definition of what a NRL club is and a list of prerequisites created that all current and future clubs must meet. The NRL cannot continue to be a cross between a national competition and a suburban Sydney one.

 

[flippikat]

Before the NRL looks at expansion, a plan for the redistribution of Sydney clubs must be created and implemented. There must be a clear and concise definition of what a NRL club is and a list of prerequisites created that all current and future clubs must meet. The NRL cannot continue to be a cross between a national competition and a suburban Sydney one.

I agree - you know the real competition for the NRL (long term) is not the AFL.

It's Rugby.

The AFL is ultimately limited by the fact that it's an Australian code - their game will NEVER take off in New Zealand, let alone anywhere else.

Rugby on the other hand is a game on the march - The tri-nations is going to expand next year to include Argentina in a 4-nations format. Japanese coach John Kirwan is pushing for there to be a Japanese-based side in Super Rugby. Plus the SANZAR competitions benefit from having all the money from TV rights that South Africa brings in (being in the same timezone as Europe).

It's time Rugby League had a goal to becoming not just the premier oval-ball code of Australia, but at the very least the premier oval-ball code of the South Pacific.

 

[docbrown]

I agree - you know the real competition for the NRL (long term) is not the AFL.

It's Rugby.

The AFL is ultimately limited by the fact that it's an Australian code - their game will NEVER take off in New Zealand, let alone anywhere else.

Rugby on the other hand is a game on the march - The tri-nations is going to expand next year to include Argentina in a 4-nations format. Japanese coach John Kirwan is pushing for there to be a Japanese-based side in Super Rugby. Plus the SANZAR competitions benefit from having all the money from TV rights that South Africa brings in (being in the same timezone as Europe).

It's time Rugby League had a goal to becoming not just the premier oval-ball code of Australia, but at the very least the premier oval-ball code of the South Pacific.

Rugby Union will never be the number one code in this country because it has a weak club competition. People want to follow a team in their area week in week out, not for half the year with games against South African teams that nobody cares about.

But take the 5 NZ teams, add/merge the Warriors and add 18-20 or so Australian NRL teams then you've got a dominant competition.

 

[Perth Red]

Well that's the key unknowable. If the League wants to issue two new franchises no later than early 2013 for a 2015 entry, how do they get certainty on who is moving where and when before then? Again, especially without being seen as too proactive and depriving existing clubs the right to self determination? A forced relocation of a club that hasn't accepted the need to go doesn't really help anyone.

Leigh.

They can't and won't know by 2013. Reality is no club is moving till 2018 at the earliest imo. They will all wait to see if the IC, TV money and the bright new future will bail them out of their holes. If it does they will stay where their roots are forever more, if it doesn;t then they might move. But they won't know that for quite a few years more. It is why, imo, the immediate expansion will see Perth and a 2nd Brisbane side leaving the Bears to come in if and when a NSW team moves to a strategic area with no bid development, such as SA, Wellington or Sunshine Coast.

Not sure where this leaves the CQ who seem to have some decent backing but lacking in infrastructure and fanbase.

 

[Quidgybo]

They can't and won't know by 2013. Reality is no club is moving till 2018 at the earliest imo. They will all wait to see if the IC, TV money and the bright new future will bail them out of their holes. If it does they will stay where their roots are forever more, if it doesn;t then they might move. But they won't know that for quite a few years more. It is why, imo, the immediate expansion will see Perth and a 2nd Brisbane side leaving the Bears to come in if and when a NSW team moves to a strategic area with no bid development, such as SA, Wellington or Sunshine Coast.

But that takes us to 19 franchises which ignores the premise that the League may not really want to move beyond 18 franchises any time soon (ie. within 20 to 30 years). There's already a line of thought being pushed by a minority that we shouldn't go beyond 16 and we all know that News Ltd actually wanted even less than that. If we're holding up the NFL as the model we're pursuing as implied by our CEO, then with a population of only 25 to 30m to support it every additional franchise is really pushing the comp in the wrong direction.

None of this is to say those who don't want to go beyond 18 or those who wish to stay at 16 are against expansion. But whether it's 16, 18 or 36, at some point you're going to have say it's undesirable to issue more franchises and future expansion is going to have to come through redistribution of existing franchises either through relocation or death/relegation and replacement. Given the public discussion of the NFL model I suspect the general line of thought at the League is that we're already close to the desired cap on franchises and that there won't be a rapid move to 20 teams but rather 18 will pull us up for quite a number of years.

But even if the comp is capped at 18 franchises for the medium to long term, I can't see the League being happy to just add two new teams and sit with all the existing teams remaining where they are. There's immediate pressure for more content for Queensland and to open up Perth, and there's likely to be growing pressure for more content for New Zealand. And that's before throwing in the question of what to do with the Bears. If you leave the Bears out you still need one relocation to meet the other three needs. If you bring the Bears in you now need two licenses to move.

Without the League taking a proactive approach targeting specific existing teams to move, you end up with the potential for all sorts of sticky situations. If you leave the Bears out and Manly moves then you're stuck with no team between the Harbour Bridge and Newcastle and no new franchises available because of the desire not to extend beyond 18 teams. If the Bears come in and no one moves then you have the entire game being held back as the need to serve other areas becomes more dire, again with no new franchises to fill the gaps. But then being proactive is a dangerous game because it can be seen as taking away the right to self determination for existing teams and their fans. There isn't an easy answer.

The only idea I could suggest is for the League to throw it completely open for 2015 and let all 22 or whatever bids (the 16 existing license holders and the 4 or so new bids) submit applications for a comp with 18 spots. If the licenses are awarded progressively starting with Sydney then those existing clubs who miss out initially will still have a chance to regroup and either relocate on their own, voluntarily drop out of the race, or form some sort of joint venture with one of new bidders. Running it as a two round process, greater Sydney and non-Sydney, with six or twelve months between the rounds is what allows the League to escape with the minimum pain.

In the first round the NRL would say we want 7 teams between Gosford and Wollongong. With the Bears there would be 10 bidders meaning 3 would miss out. The NRL could then say we want 3 teams in SE Qld, 2 in NZ, 1 in Perth as well as all the other markets that already have one team. That leaves the 3 who missed out in a Sydney with six or twelve months to work out what they'd like to try and do. They'll know there is an open spot in NZ that apparently doesn't have a new bidder. Or they could go head to head or look to form a joint venture with one of the new bidders for one of the new franchises in SE Qld or Perth.

Yes the League would be forcing clubs out of Sydney but beyond that the clubs would free to choose what they do next. Which market they prefer to move to and whether they are now willing to look to a joint venture would be left to the clubs themselves with enough breathing room to really ink about it. The second round allows the opportunity for the League to turn it around form being the evil enemy trying to kill clubs to being a partner who is trying to help those who missed out in round one find a future that they'll be happy with. They could even approach it from a view that they'll look favorably on proposals from existing/former license holders, again to repair bridges from the first round and minimize the overall damage.

(Yeah, this response got a bit out of hand. I'll make it more concise if I ever write the book)

Leigh.

 

[docbrown]

Re: kicking clubs out, didn't the Souths incident settle the NRL's position on that? Basically that it wasn't worth the legal costs to do so.

I don't think we'll see any team culled - only merged or relocated with the consensus of the club or choose to fold themselves because of financial pressures.

 

[KiamaSaint]

The easy solution to the rationalisation of Sydney teams is to remove the salary cap for a time and let teams relocate or die. There is an argument that could be made that the NRL need to prop up some regional teams that are important to the future of the game so that they can keep pace in the short term, certainly the AFL do that. I really hope the IC get serious because it is a situation that is holding the NRL back.

 

[Goddo]

If you bring the Bears in you now need two licenses to move.

And this is why they won't introduce the Bears - the commission is elected to run the game in the best interests of the CURRENT CLUBS. They won't actively persue a policy which puts the squeeze on a NSW team simply to introduce another NSW team.

The most reasonable aproach is for the NRL to expand with Perth and SE Queensland and get clubs to play at Gosford more (more of what we currently do), possibly a permanent relocation,

or

Expand in Perth and Central Coast and pressure a current niche market Sydney club like Manly or Cronulla (or less likely a club with low support like the Roosters/Panthers) to move to Queensland. I think this is is a much less likely outcome, as it goes against the role of the IC to do whats in the interests of current clubs. The advantage of this option is that the brands are established, and would have support in Sydney. But it has to be done through incentives, and might not happen at all.

 

[Red&BlackBear]

If the CCBears didn't have it's own fans, stadium, catchment, sponsors, business partners, juniors you guys might have a point but....

 

[Quidgybo]

Re: kicking clubs out, didn't the Souths incident settle the NRL's position on that? Basically that it wasn't worth the legal costs to do so.

Certainly. But if you go totally to the other extreme of leaving it all to the whims of the clubs then you open yourself up to having areas that need teams with no way to satisfy that other than adding even more franchises. We accuse the League of having no strategic plan yet they can't really have a strategic plan that is more than just paper without playing some sort of active role in implementing it.

If the size of the comp isn't to blow out and areas we don't want to be left without teams left unserved (eg. the area between the Harbour Bridge and Newcastle) then the NRL is going to have to play some part in choosing who moves, giving them an incentive to actually do it in a reasonable timeframe, and guiding where they can move to. All while not being seen as kicking clubs out or trying to kill them.

What I'm suggesting is that a two round process where all existing clubs have to re-bid for their positions along with new bidders would allow the League to define the shape of the comp and then let the clubs work out where they want to try and fit in that. it's similar to the rationalization process that occurred in the aftermath of the Super League war with two key differences.

Firstly, with a move to 18 teams there are actually two more licenses than there are existing teams so there's a place for everyone if they're willing to work with where the League is going. Secondly, by awarding the Sydney licenses 12 months before the remainder, missing the cut isn't the end of the road. There is a choice of places to go for those who miss out that the League is willing to help you get to.

The message can't be that we're trying to get rid of existing teams but rather that there's a spot for every single one of you plus a couple new/former teams. That said, we've got a strategic plan for the maximum number of teams we're willing to accommodate and where we need those teams to be in the short to medium term and we need you guys to work with us to get there.

Leigh.

 

[Goddo]

Re: kicking clubs out, didn't the Souths incident settle the NRL's position on that? Basically that it wasn't worth the legal costs to do so.

I don't think we'll see any team culled - only merged or relocated with the consensus of the club or choose to fold themselves because of financial pressures.

Again, this is why expansion within NSW is so unlikely. The NRL can't really boot clubs, there is precident (Wests 1983, Souths 2002).

They can only use carrot, not stick to get NSW clubs to do what they want. The stick has to be financial preasures on individual underperforming clubs - ie not enough carrot for all.

The easy option is to push on with national expansion, and let market forces shift the poorer NSW clubs.