NRL Being Left Behind In Expansion Of Australian Sport

[mozgrame]

The Gold Coast Titans joined the NRL in 2007 at a time when Rugby League was still recovering from the Super League War. At the time the game was terribly underfunded with terrible broadcasting deals in place and a lack of corporate infrastructure holding the game back in a big way.

As we head into 2017 things are very different. Rugby League in Australia has enough money that it has started to build a “war chest” and areas where the game lacked in the past in terms of administration have been addressed in a big way.

The thing is, Rugby League still twiddles its thumbs when it comes to expansion. We still only have 16 clubs and are not even close to having a national competition.

Below is a list of expansion teams that have been announced, and that have played games in national sporting competitions, since the Gold Coast Titans entered the NRL in 2007.

Read more....http://www.leaguefreak.com/nrl-being-left-behind-in-expansion-of-australian-sport-8556/

 

[Eagles2nv]

Whilst I do think its time for the NRL to expand into markets like Perth, expansion is risky.

Take a look at Cricket Australia. They have the fastest growing comp in the country (BBL) and have postponed all expansion plans out of fear of damaging the comp.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Whilst I do think its time for the NRL to expand into markets like Perth, expansion is risky.

Take a look at Cricket Australia. They have the fastest growing comp in the country (BBL) and have postponed all expansion plans out of fear of damaging the comp.

Agree

We need 2-3 less teams in Sydney, 1 in CQ, 1 more in BNE and one in PER.

But not more teams for the sake of it.

 

[Shoe1]

Good, the game should be smaller. It's the best game and shouldn't try to expand.

 

[Shoe1]

We need real clubs. Real tradition, real hatred. Maybe two conferences.

 

[Ned]

The NRL has mis-managed the sport for nearly 2 decades now. The management is totally inept and has been since day 1. Gallop was a news ltd lawyer/goon, Smith is a banker bureaucrat that has no idea about sports management and Greenturd...well say no more. On top of that the independent commission has done nothing and seems to be a total toothless tiger run by a bunch of geriatric cretins cashing in on an easy payday.

Boils down to the NRL achieving everything layed out in the article, exactly ZERO development for a DECADE. Total ****ing clown show!!

 

[mozgrame]

Agree

We need 2-3 less teams in Sydney, 1 in CQ, 1 more in BNE and one in PER.

But not more teams for the sake of it.

Which 2 or 3 teams would you drop from Sydney? I think I'd like to see an expansion into CQ (obviously), Gosford and perhaps Ipswich. Greenburg has stated expansion into Qld would not occur during the current broadcast deal, but maybe (?) next time.

Qld have 3 clubs in the NRL, but supply 40% of the players. Greenburg needs to make some tough calls with the existing clubs and kill off the ones that continually fail to meet KPIs of professionalism, player development, crowds, marketing etc.

Why continue to prop up clubs in struggling areas when there are other options? Expand the game to where the growth, love and support is strongest. Grow some balls, NRL! Give the strugglers a firm and definite choice, relocate or perish. If they choose to fall on their swords, so be it.

Until the NRL shows some real leadership and vision for the future of the game, we will continue to stagnate, clubs will require financial assistance and more kids will drift to other codes.

It's time to make some tough calls, Todd. Are you and your mates dedicated to this glorious sport and its long term future growth, or are you all just happy to personally reap the financial rewards, back your own agendas in club land and play gods for another couple of years, then let the next administration worry about it? You have the opportunity to actually make an historic contribution to the good of the game and ensuring its longevity.

No club, in this business driven environment deserves to exist, just because. I'm all for foundation, or even clubs that currently exist, to be given the chance to prove that they can compete at the top level, but if they can't sustain their own existence and provide adequate evidence of continued competitiveness in their current location, then choices have to be made. Firstly by the NRL, then by the clubs themselves. No club is bigger than the game, and no State is either. Go where the growth is or slowly wither.

 

[HoldenV8]

Agree

We need 2-3 less teams in Sydney, 1 in CQ, 1 more in BNE and one in PER.

But not more teams for the sake of it.

Expansion for the sake of expansion is never a good idea. Its all well and good saying yeah, lets have a team in Perth and down the track maybe have a team in say.....Adelaide and/or Darwin. But they have to be financially viable so that the league itself doesn't have to keep pumping money into the clubs to keep them going (remember the original Western Reds in Perth ended up being booted after just 3 years in no small part because they were $10 million in debt). There needs to be on-going financial viability and for rugby league teams in AFL dominated towns that is a hard thing to establish. It would be hard enough with a totally new team, let alone having one re-located from another city.

And they have to have a decent enough fan base so that when those teams aren't winning they are still going to draw a half decent crowd. A perfect example there is the Adelaide Rams. When they started in SL in 1997 they drew 27,435 to their first game, but by the end of 1998 they were struggling to draw 7,000 (though part of the Rams problem was that the Adelaide Crows won the AFL premiership in 1997 and 1998, plus Port Adelaide joined the AFL in 1997. Add in that the Adelaide 36ers were winning national league titles at the time and so was our netball team).

I have read a fair bit about maybe having a soccer style two-tier competition with relegation and promotion. But really, that would never work, especially in Sydney. You think about it, NSW Cup struggles to draw a decent crowd so would fans in Sydney (even for Manly) turn up in numbers to watch their team playing in a 2nd division?

While expansion is nice to think about (I'd love to see a team back in Adelaide), the current clubs and competition need to be in a lot better position before that is a consideration.

 

[Genius]

Broncos need to have their one team city policy examined. Broncos don't care about the game only the commercial dollar. The sooner a second team is based in Brisbane the better.

 

[Bearfax]

I've been onto this band wagon with ROAR and quite frankly it astonishes me the conservatism we see in League.

In 1995 we had 20 teams in the competition before Murdock caused the famous SuperLeague split and when the dust settled several teams like Norths Sydney were broke because they tried to outbid Moneybags for the best players. You may recall Scott Fulton was paid a fortune to stay at Manly and Manly the once wealthy club almost also went broke. Had the ARL continued, Norths would have successfully migrated to the Central Coast, and despite the gloom and doom forecasters, the comp was healthier than it was again for another almost 15 years, with satisfactory crowds attending the new clubs including Perth, Adelaide, North Queensland and the Gold Coast. The League were even preparing to add Melbourne a year or two later.

SuperLeague resulted in the comp contracting back to 14 teams, and a much poorer attendance record.

What doesnt seem to be understood is that expanding to new areas enhances the game. More kids from those districts want to play. More sponsors from those areas want their names on guernseys. Media will increase the financial allocation because the game is being seen by a wider audience. There is no loss. I agree there should be no more Sydney based sides, but if those sides are financially viable and they are getting crowd support then let them be.

What we need is a little forward thinking in the League. Perth is obvious with two Rugby League comps played in that state and the promise of strong corporate support. So what's the problem? They should be playing next year. A second Brisbane (or Toowoomba), would lessen the monopoly and unfair advantage the Broncos enjoy. A second NZ side would gain increasing access to those players looking for fame but not getting to the big time in Union. It also opens the door further for Pac Is players to be involved. Papua New Guinea has as big a population as New South Wales and their number one sport is Rugby League. Their performances in the Queensland Cup have been most encouraging, and with a little more financial support (share of the media goodies and sponsorship), they could establish an effective team structure suitable for the NRL.

And its easy to accommodate 20 even 22 teams if they only play each other once a year, or perhaps have groups of four teams that play other sides once, but each of the other three in their group twice. There seems to be this fear that clubs will fail, wont make the grade. So what? If they dont make it you drop them from the comp. Maybe replace them with another potential successful team.

I cannot understand the fear associated with this issue. The League had eight teams in 1946. Two of those teams have disappeared. It was feared the addition of Parramatta and Manly the following year would cause problems. Where are the problems? And now with 16 teams are we worse off? Were we worse off in 1995 with 20 teams? In fact that was one of League's most successful years.

Expand or perish, replaced by other sports that offer the kids the chance for fame.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Todd & Balls in the same sentence doesn't compute @mozgrame

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

Which 2 or 3 teams would you drop from Sydney? I think I'd like to see an expansion into CQ (obviously), Gosford and perhaps Ipswich. Greenburg has stated expansion into Qld would not occur during the current broadcast deal, but maybe (?) next time.

Qld have 3 clubs in the NRL, but supply 40% of the players. Greenburg needs to make some tough calls with the existing clubs and kill off the ones that continually fail to meet KPIs of professionalism, player development, crowds, marketing etc.

Why continue to prop up clubs in struggling areas when there are other options? Expand the game to where the growth, love and support is strongest. Grow some balls, NRL! Give the strugglers a firm and definite choice, relocate or perish. If they choose to fall on their swords, so be it.

Until the NRL shows some real leadership and vision for the future of the game, we will continue to stagnate, clubs will require financial assistance and more kids will drift to other codes.

It's time to make some tough calls, Todd. Are you and your mates dedicated to this glorious sport and its long term future growth, or are you all just happy to personally reap the financial rewards, back your own agendas in club land and play gods for another couple of years, then let the next administration worry about it? You have the opportunity to actually make an historic contribution to the good of the game and ensuring its longevity.

No club, in this business driven environment deserves to exist, just because. I'm all for foundation, or even clubs that currently exist, to be given the chance to prove that they can compete at the top level, but if they can't sustain their own existence and provide adequate evidence of continued competitiveness in their current location, then choices have to be made. Firstly by the NRL, then by the clubs themselves. No club is bigger than the game, and no State is either. Go where the growth is or slowly wither.

Where does Manly fit in on the KPI front these days Moz?

Be careful what you wish for.🙂

 

[nightster]

I have read a fair bit about maybe having a soccer style two-tier competition with relegation and promotion. But really, that would never work, especially in Sydney. You think about it, NSW Cup struggles to draw a decent crowd so would fans in Sydney (even for Manly) turn up in numbers to watch their team playing in a 2nd division?

we wouldn't be in 2nd Division we are the Manly Warringah Sea Eagles

 

[MadMarcus]

I've been onto this band wagon with ROAR and quite frankly it astonishes me the conservatism we see in League.

In 1995 we had 20 teams in the competition before Murdock caused the famous SuperLeague split and when the dust settled several teams like Norths Sydney were broke because they tried to outbid Moneybags for the best players. You may recall Scott Fulton was paid a fortune to stay at Manly and Manly the once wealthy club almost also went broke. Had the ARL continued, Norths would have successfully migrated to the Central Coast, and despite the gloom and doom forecasters, the comp was healthier than it was again for another almost 15 years, with satisfactory crowds attending the new clubs including Perth, Adelaide, North Queensland and the Gold Coast. The League were even preparing to add Melbourne a year or two later.

SuperLeague resulted in the comp contracting back to 14 teams, and a much poorer attendance record.

What doesnt seem to be understood is that expanding to new areas enhances the game. More kids from those districts want to play. More sponsors from those areas want their names on guernseys. Media will increase the financial allocation because the game is being seen by a wider audience. There is no loss. I agree there should be no more Sydney based sides, but if those sides are financially viable and they are getting crowd support then let them be.

What we need is a little forward thinking in the League. Perth is obvious with two Rugby League comps played in that state and the promise of strong corporate support. So what's the problem? They should be playing next year. A second Brisbane (or Toowoomba), would lessen the monopoly and unfair advantage the Broncos enjoy. A second NZ side would gain increasing access to those players looking for fame but not getting to the big time in Union. It also opens the door further for Pac Is players to be involved. Papua New Guinea has as big a population as New South Wales and their number one sport is Rugby League. Their performances in the Queensland Cup have been most encouraging, and with a little more financial support (share of the media goodies and sponsorship), they could establish an effective team structure suitable for the NRL.

And its easy to accommodate 20 even 22 teams if they only play each other once a year, or perhaps have groups of four teams that play other sides once, but each of the other three in their group twice. There seems to be this fear that clubs will fail, wont make the grade. So what? If they dont make it you drop them from the comp. Maybe replace them with another potential successful team.

I cannot understand the fear associated with this issue. The League had eight teams in 1946. Two of those teams have disappeared. It was feared the addition of Parramatta and Manly the following year would cause problems. Where are the problems? And now with 16 teams are we worse off? Were we worse off in 1995 with 20 teams? In fact that was one of League's most successful years.

Expand or perish, replaced by other sports that offer the kids the chance for fame.

The argument put forward at the time of the contraction was that there are not enough good players to support a 20/22 team comp... But I think that's total baloney. I didn't see any marked improvement in the standard of the comp when we started kicking teams out.

More teams = more "product" = more fans = more $.

The whole peace deal was a disaster from which the game may never recover. We have now lost 2 decades.

 

[MadMarcus]

It was feared the addition of Parramatta and Manly the following year would cause problems. Where are the problems?

Parramatta

 

[Harvies elbow]

We need real clubs. Real tradition, real hatred. Maybe two conferences.

Amazingly buzz rothfield came up with a model about 18 months ago ( or allegedly came up with it) that was a good one. I think it involved one extra team in central Qld but no clubs kicked out, 2 conferences, Sydney teams and the rest. They then play each other in playoffs.
League relies on what worked 20 years ago. like origin.
It waits for the bread to get mouldy before buying a fresh loaf.

 

[double hoops]

Agree

We need 2-3 less teams in Sydney, 1 in CQ, 1 more in BNE and one in PER.

But not more teams for the sake of it.

@mozgrame was JM Kelly group the money backer behind the CQ bid? If they've just gone bust, add the mining downturn which has been savage out that way. That CQ bid would be in complete tatters right now wouldn't it?

 

[mozgrame]

Where does Manly fit in on the KPI front these days Moz?

Be careful what you wish for.🙂

I'll tell you where we fit. It's obvious, Tezza. Rockhampton.

 

[mozgrame]

@mozgrame was JM Kelly group the money backer behind the CQ bid? If they've just gone bust, add the mining downturn which has been savage out that way. That CQ bid would be in complete tatters right now wouldn't it?

Actually, mate...the mining is picking back up as we speak. We have 3 new mines opening and Cockatoo Coal (Baralaba Coal) has announced that they will be reopening next year as well. It's a fantastic time for any of you astute investors to cash in.

Some friends of ours were looking at selling their house out at Moura last year. They had it valued at 99k. They just got it revalued the other day, and they were told it's worth 350/380k. 2 months ago 3 bedroom houses at Baralaba, on big blocks, 3 bay sheds, plenty of entertaining areas were selling for 75k. Name your price now. Rocky also has a lot of interstate investors buying up commercial properties with regular auctions in Sydney and Melbourne.

As for footy, the Capras were competitive last year for the first half of the year, but fell away again when it mattered. Kim Williams still has some work to do and their performances don't help the NRL bid, that's for sure.

 

[double hoops]

Expansion growing the game where it's not well followed or much played. I'd like to see teams back in Perth and Adelaide. If a draft is in place you have a national competition.

A