1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

New CEO puts expansion back on the table

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by eagles2win, Mar 3, 2013.

  1. eagles2win

    eagles2win Well-Known Member

    +494 /0
    They're getting the house in order by the end of 2014 and then opening up for 2015 apparently.
    I'd say naming the sides in 2015 and enter into the comp by 2017 (new tv deal).

    Ideally I'd love this 4 teams in :

    West Coast Pirates : WA team new time slot extra $'s for tv deal

    Sth Brisbane Bears : ideal situation Flo realises that the Central Coast don't want a blow in from Sydney but still wants the Bears in so move them to a market that isn't saturated = Brisbane.
    We get our 'traditional' rival back and the NRL gets an 'original' team back so get some positive media from that

    Another 2 New Zealand teams : Wellington Orcas and Southern Lions the Country is producing the talent to do it.

    I also think he should get look at doing this :
    Pacific Cup tests every year (lowest rank side relegate and the likes of Japan, USA, Canada and Jamaica take there positions)
    Every year that the Kangaroos and Kiwis play in the Northern Hemisphere the Emu's (Aus' A) and Kiwis 'A' tour the Pacific and US.
    Sure it'll might be costly but if just 5% of America watches the game that's Australia's population right there
  2. MWSE

    MWSE Well-Known Member

    +335 /2
    I hate the subject of expansion. There isn't even enough quality players for all the present teams. Why dilute that playing pool even further? Pinching players from union in NZ will be a slow process. Also the NRL needs to be realistic in regards to its expansion areas. Brisbane, Perth, and NZ would be the only areas I would consider.

    The only way the game will expand is to retract in Sydney. Teams need to be given geographical areas of Sydney; North, South, East, Inner West, West. The other teams need to be shipped out to those expansion areas.
  3. eagles2win

    eagles2win Well-Known Member

    +494 /0
    ESL salary cap will remain the same for some time until either the economy picks up or England wins the World Cup.
    France has started to produce good juniors. Wales the same.
    So a source of players there.
    The islands also.
    WA apart outside of nsw and Qld produces the most juniors but at this stage have a unfortunately a really little outlet to showcase it.
    You've also got junior sides like Penrith, Wests Tigers, Canterbury, Parramatta, New Zealand, Souths, Newcastle,Souths Logan, Brisbane Easts,Wynnum Manly that seem to have a production line of players
  4. MWSE

    MWSE Well-Known Member

    +335 /2
    If these players exist then why do you have teams like the Eels last year wheeling out whole teams o NSW Cup standard players and getting flogged?

    It takes decades to put in place proper systems to develop professional level players. Expanding prematurely would be a terrible thing for the NRL.

    (Btw just a note on my first comment, I do not support the centralisation of teams into geographical areas. My comment was merely made to state that if we were to expand as suggested in that time frame then that is what needs to happen.)
  5. eagles2win

    eagles2win Well-Known Member

    +494 /0
    Poor coaching for starters.

    Sure the likes of Kearney and Meninga can coach teams of superstars but give them an ordinary team and brings them back to the field.

    Give Bellamy, Hasler or McGuire Parra and they'll be top 4 within two seasons.

    Expansion will occur due to the keeping up with the jones's idea - AFL, A League and S15 have expanded since our last expansion.
    Have heard rugby union may expand to include USA, Canada and Japan
  6. MissKate

    MissKate Well-Known Member Premium Member

    +1,621 /7
    The problem having more NZ teams is that the never have to play MFN which means other teams have to cop more Mon games than they should have to (e.g. Manly in 2013). That is why Perth is a good option, fits well with being the second game on Fri, Sat & Sun. Another team in Bris to put a halt to the fnf monopoly the donkeys currently enjoy also a good move
  7. MWSE

    MWSE Well-Known Member

    +335 /2
    You want four teams. That is 100 extra players that are deemed worthy for an NRL squad contract. Not gonna happen. Plus you want additional Craig Bellamys to pop out of the wahzoo and start coaching. Not gonna happen.

    People in and around the NRL have this odd obsession with looking at what the other codes are doing and wanting to mimic it. That is not how we are going to improve and grow the game. The NRL is a completely different beast to the A-League, AFL, Super Rugby, NFL, MLB and all the other sports under the sun. We do not need to be reactive to other sports. We need to plot our own course!
  8. Jono

    Jono Well-Known Member

    +176 /5
    And our own course will require us to have:

    1) another team in Brisbane
    2) A team in Perth
    3) A 9th timeslot every week

    That's the future for Rugby League. we don't and we fall even further behind the AFL. Our next TV deal must end up bigger than the AFL, like it should always have been. To do this we need to give them value and that means new markets, and an extra game every week.
  9. Hamster Huey

    Hamster Huey Space Invader Premium Member

    +1,178 /9
    If the ARLC is all-encompassing in the management of League, it's time for them to stamp the Northern Sydney area as the Sea Eagles domain.

    The Bears are an ineffectual element within the region now and with a likely reduction in Sydney teams in the next decade, we need to be the only presence managing the vast area from Hornsby to Chatswood and up the Beaches.

    It shores up the next generation in that area as 'Sea Eagles' fans and gives the club a larger population catchment in which to lobby the various Governments and League bodies, for support.
  10. bob dylan

    bob dylan Well-Known Member Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +6,440 /192
    If am CEO.

    Cut the teams back to 12.

    Goodbye Storm

    Goodbye Broncos

    Goodbye Dogs

    Goodbye Eels.
  11. Hamster Huey

    Hamster Huey Space Invader Premium Member

    +1,178 /9
    Sydney needs less clubs. I think we're mostly in agreeance here that 9 is not sustainable for real growth.

    My idea would be to put the onus back on the clubs and fans of each of the 9 to prove a case for why they deserve to stay, but not in an emotive sense.

    In the first instance, clubs should give due consideration for a move out of Sydney. But this would be limited to just two areas; Perth and Adelaide. If done properly with those affiliate states, then we can reduce the impact on fans being lost and maintain some history for those that choose to move.

    If no club(s) are forthcoming, then the ARLC needs to state the following;

    - In four years time the ARLC will look at reducing the number of teams in Sydney to just 6;
    - The number of teams in the League will remain at 16;
    - Sydney clubs must reach the below minimum goals by the completion of the third season;
    (a) - 25,000 ticketed members;
    (b) - Generate a minimum level of club sponsorship per year of 'x' amount, and
    (c) - Home attendances at a minimum average of 25,000 per game (against Sydney rivals) and 20,000 (out-of-town rivals).

    - Season draws over the next three years will ensure a balanced schedule to avoid any bias against a club due to combinations of unpopular opponents and/or timeslots affecting the above.

    - Six monthly independent audits to be conducted on all clubs to ensure that clubs are not 'rorting' the elements.

    - Any club meeting those minimum levels will be allowed to remain in Sydney for a further five years, during which time another direction is sent out for further consolidation, targeting further increases on those areas.

    - If only 1-2 clubs fall short, then the number of clubs in Sydney only drops by that 1 or 2. If 4 or more fail, than only the bottom three are cut away.

    Now drop that into the laps of the clubs and fans, giving them the time to make or break it in the top grade. It may cause some serious changes to what it requires for us to support our clubs, but in the end if your club doesn't make the effort, or you the fan aren't prepared to get involved, then you have nobody to blame but yourself down the track.
  12. eagle-rock08

    eagle-rock08 Active Member

    +70 /0
    Gentlemen and ladies

    I am all for expansion.

    What we do 'not' need is to reduce the number of teams in Sydney. Sydney is a rugby league town and can support the teams it has. It is tribal and if we mess with that the game will lose fans. I cite The Northern Eagles to support this assumption.

    Before the "Super League War" we had 20 teams. I for one enjoyed it.

    Two of those teams disappeared in the Adelaide Rams and the Western Reds.

    The beauty of these teams was the time-slots with NZ two hours in front and WA two or three hours behind. It was perfect for TV. Hence we had a better product than we do now. (Before I get lambasted it is my opinion.)

    But the question is how do we get back to that better product?

    Here is what I think:

    Bring back WA in 2014. Total teams 17.

    For all existing teams reduce the top-twenty five to twenty four. That will leave 16 players that could form the nucleus of a team. The new team would need to get eight more players.

    Increase the age of the NYC from under 20's to under 23's allowing teams to develop promising juniors.

    All replacements could then come from only the top range players or the NYC.

    Bring back SA in 2015. Total teams 18.

    Again take one player off the top twenty four and make it a top 23. Another 16 players to form the nucleus of another team.

    At this point reduce the number of interchange players from a seventeen man squad to 16 with unlimited interchange.

    At this point we would have 9 games to watch every week. Allowing for the time differentials we could see many of these new teams live. Thus enhancing the competition.

    Hold all expansion for another three years. Thus allowing the competition to settle a little. But have a plan to expand the final numbers to 20 teams in 2018.

    If we then find the competition can expand bring in two more teams. One from Southern Brisbane and the other could be either PNG or Central Coast.

    If we find that we need extra players again reduce the top squads and take the radical step of reducing the number of players on the field per team from 13 to 12. (Losing the lock forward or one centre.) Thus opening the field up for attacking sides. Also the squad could be reduced from the now 16 players to 15.

    With a final expansion of 20 teams we could then run a "conference" type draw with two sets of 10 teams in each conference. Each team would play every team in their conference twice (home and away). The winners of each conference would play in the grand final.

    The conferences would change each year with 2,4,6,8 and 10 in each conference changing to the other conference each year. Thus making sure the conferences are of equal strength.
  13. MadMarcus

    MadMarcus Local Lunatic 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +8,378 /74
    I don't care if there is expansion or not.

    As long as we keep winning that's all that matters.
  14. simon_eagle

    simon_eagle Well-Known Member

    +390 /9
    The problem with your point, Hamster, is that if those were indeed the guidelines, we might well be one of the Sydney clubs to get the cut.
  15. The Who

    The Who Well-Known Member Premium Member

    +7,247 /173
    All nine Sydney clubs seems to be 'healthy' and well supported. The one possible exception is Penrith, which should be a powerhouse. But I can't see any Sydney team going. Cronulla has certainly lifted its game on all fronts, including financially.

    Brisbane is the first region that needs at least one, and probably two new teams. The reasons are obvious.

    Do that before you consider any further expansion.
  16. Shoe1

    Shoe1 Well-Known Member

    +7,204 /105
    I like your thinking. Bye bye titans too. Actually let's keep the Sydney teams and revert to the nswrl comp.
    If qld is so great let em run their own conference.
  17. Kiwi Eagle

    Kiwi Eagle Moderator Staff Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +3,870 /65
    Another 2 teams over here is overkill !!

    They have spent nearly 20years trying to get 1 right
  18. jbb/james

    jbb/james Well-Known Member Premium Member

    +1,493 /35
    I dont think there will be less sydney teams, Just less of them in the top grade. The CEO eludes to a tier system and that is probably what will happen I think

    Not sure about the above mentioned criteria. You cant set a criteria for the sydney based teams only, in a partnership. If The tigers, Penrith or Manly were to be axed but had a better criteria that the Gold coast it just wouldnt work, although I enjoyed the content

    I can see divisions being created , with a possible merger or re location being tried. No merger or relocate will occur with any of the current franchise hopefuls as they have full business plans in place to go solo and would not welcome old issues from established clubs and there baggage. So that leaves only S.A as a candidate in a relocation IMO

    I agree with Kiwi. I wonder if NZ can support a 2nd team yet, let alone a third. For NZ to really click the NRL needs to spend big dollars on junior development through the future fund, if they can keep the current players eyes of the booty

    Apart from QLD teams and probably the central coast, any new team will require a massive injection of funds from the game at the grass roots levels, to compliment the decision to move into new markets

    The game has to be smarter than it has been and support new franchises indirectly, rather than leaving the growing of the game to passionate hopefuls with big bank balances and small agendas
    • Like Like x 1
    • MadMarcus

      MadMarcus Local Lunatic 2017 Tipping Competitor

      +8,378 /74
      The last time the governing body did something like this was the "criteria" introduced as a result of Super League war. That set the game back 10 years. If we do the same thing again it will have the same result.
      • Like Like x 1
      • Hamster Huey

        Hamster Huey Space Invader Premium Member

        +1,178 /9
        I was well aware of that and believe that a serious influence needs to be put to the clubs and fans to shake of the apathy.

        We get at least 60,000 fans at consecutive GFs and we still struggle to sign-up 10,000 members.

        We have the most successful club over the last 50 years playing at the best 'fortress' in the history of League and we are popping champagne when we get more than 15000 to a match.

        Larissa must wake in a cold sweat regularly, thinking how in the world she can do more to 'sell' the idea of membership to our many supporters.

        We dodged a bullet with the NE debacle and just 10 years later we're all back to our 90's idea of '..we're successful; we'll be right..' when the realities are not that clear-cut.

        Fans assuming their club will always be there is seeing many barely scrape by year to year. Time to get a rocket up 'em.
        I am not proposing the weighting or bias of the SL Criteria. I also considered an appropriate timeframe for something to be done by those unlikely to survive on current numbers.

        And I'm certainly not proposing that teams will be cut.

        The Criteria was designed to attack non-SL clubs and it used elements that News Ltd could manipulate to get their boys over the line (ARL clubs couldn't use Leagues Club funds; SL utilised News Ltd 'sponsorship' monies).

        If our club or our fans can't reach those relatively modest targets within three years, I'd seriously question the point of us being there.
        Perhaps the answer is accepting a conference system that quarantines 'x' amount of spots in the top grade for Sydney clubs.

        But promotion still relies on you meeting certain benchmarks, ie. results on the field are not everything.

        I appreciate that you feel it unfair to split Sydney vs the Rest but I feel that to apply criteria to outposts and/or small town clubs, could do more damage to the growth and sustainability of League in this country, if you demote/remove those clubs.

        It would be a terrible decision to remove Canberra, Melbourne or New Zealand if they couldn't meet the same criteria, given how quick the League void would then be filled in those markets.

        Sydney is supposed to be the jewel in the crown for League in this country, but it can act like an anchor on matters of growth and sustainability.

      Share This Page