NRL Being Left Behind In Expansion Of Australian Sport

[simon64]

All I can think of is the transformation of soccer in Australia. I know many here don't like the sport, but others, like me, love it.

Rewind to the old NSL days. Even I, who grew up in the 70's playing "wogball", took only a passing interest in the NSL. There was virtually no television coverage, the crowds were small and the results were printed right next to how many stableford points some hacker got at Carnarvon Golf Club on the weekend.

Every club had some ethnic affiliation (go Olympic) and the code was going nowhere fast. It was obvious this was stopping the sport from growing.

They bit the bullet and abandoned the whole thing. The big difference between this and rugby league is that soccer wasn't followed passionately by anywhere near enough people to worry about p**sing them off.

But look at the A-League now. Every game is live on FOX and it's only a matter of time before a free to air channel bids for the rights. The national team makes the World Cup (the real one) courtesy of the push to be admitted into Asia, and the Aussies are the champions of Asia. There are crowds. Kids wear A-League jerseys. The sport has been transformed through pretty good management.

Rugby League is my favourite sport but, f**k me it's being run into the ground.

There MUST be another team in Brisbane. We need a team in Perth, just like every other code. Go again in Adelaide and give them a leg up like the AFL do with teams like GWS. (Five years in and they nearly made the GF). A team in Central Queensland and that's 20. Split into 4 groups of 5, you play the teams in your group twice (8 games) and the others once (15 games) giving 23 rounds. More than enough.

I've never seen a bigger bunch of numpties in charge of a major sport. It's already irrelevant in the eyes of most Australians. It's just us "rusted ons" that are worried about its plight.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

I'm not sure if anyone has the balls for this (too many old cronies running the joint I feel) but its time for a reduction in the number of teams playing in Sydney, 9 is way way too many.

Have a look for a moment at the success of the TWO sides in Sydney for the A League.......ok I agree its not apples v apples, its a summer sport and many League followers just transition to A League to keep their "fix" of weekend sport going, however, think just a few years ago the Wanderer's didn't even exist and look at where they are now.

As far as sponsorship dollars go its going to get harder and harder for Sydney clubs to attract the dollars such as say the Donkeys get, but reduce some sides any maybe that gets a little easier.

I hate mergers (anyone remember ours??) but its just unrealistic for Sydney to have 9 teams and Brisbane to have 1.

The current CEO won't do it BUT someone has to look at reducing the Sydney market at least 2-3 sides less which would then allow, Perth, extra Brisbane and either New Zealand / Central Queensland (if 3 were eliminated).

How I'd do it would be as follows.

Penrith / Parramatta to remain as Western Sydney is heartland AND the west is a battlefield with the AFL's Greater Western Sydney and the A Leagues Wanderers

Eliminate the Tigers, a tough call but there has to be some casualty's

Merge St George and Cronulla (especially now they finally won a GF in their own right), they cover the same area in reality.

Merge two of the inner city clubs, if they won't merge pick one to eliminate.

Manly being the only club on the north side remains (and that's not being biased either).

And there you would have a 16 side competition (still), with 3 new markets opened as above NOT sides relocated, new sides, new names, new supporters.

If they wanted expansion to say 18, I'd add Adelaide and then you could fit in both CQ and a second NZ side probably based out of Wellington.

If the NRL want a CEO with the guts to do this, I'm available for a two year contract, 1.5 million a year each year, and after that BACK TO FISHING!!!

 

[Nike]

I'm not sure if anyone has the balls for this (too many old cronies running the joint I feel) but its time for a reduction in the number of teams playing in Sydney, 9 is way way too many.

Have a look for a moment at the success of the TWO sides in Sydney for the A League.......ok I agree its not apples v apples, its a summer sport and many League followers just transition to A League to keep their "fix" of weekend sport going, however, think just a few years ago the Wanderer's didn't even exist and look at where they are now.

As far as sponsorship dollars go its going to get harder and harder for Sydney clubs to attract the dollars such as say the Donkeys get, but reduce some sides any maybe that gets a little easier.

I hate mergers (anyone remember ours??) but its just unrealistic for Sydney to have 9 teams and Brisbane to have 1.

The current CEO won't do it BUT someone has to look at reducing the Sydney market at least 2-3 sides less which would then allow, Perth, extra Brisbane and either New Zealand / Central Queensland (if 3 were eliminated).

How I'd do it would be as follows.

Penrith / Parramatta to remain as Western Sydney is heartland AND the west is a battlefield with the AFL's Greater Western Sydney and the A Leagues Wanderers

Eliminate the Tigers, a tough call but there has to be some casualty's

Merge St George and Cronulla (especially now they finally won a GF in their own right), they cover the same area in reality.

Merge two of the inner city clubs, if they won't merge pick one to eliminate.

Manly being the only club on the north side remains (and that's not being biased either).

And there you would have a 16 side competition (still), with 3 new markets opened as above NOT sides relocated, new sides, new names, new supporters.

If they wanted expansion to say 18, I'd add Adelaide and then you could fit in both CQ and a second NZ side probably based out of Wellington.

If the NRL want a CEO with the guts to do this, I'm available for a two year contract, 1.5 million a year each year, and after that BACK TO FISHING!!!

You make a lot of good points but you can't just make Manly immune from the whole thing because of our geography, from a viability standpoint Manly would be in one of the weaker positions, as we should be. There needs to be a revolution within the game but tradition will kill any potential growth for rugby league under the NRL format. Time to wipe the slate clean, however that can be done...

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

You make a lot of good points but you can't just make Manly immune from the whole thing because of our geography, from a viability standpoint Manly would be in one of the weaker positions, as we should be. There needs to be a revolution within the game but tradition will kill any potential growth for rugby league under the NRL format. Time to wipe the slate clean, however that can be done...

Disagree, I think geography is very relevant.

 

[Rex]

If the goal is to grow the game, then some really hard decisions need to be made over the years to come.

1. Maybe as few as four Sydney teams, two Brisbane, and coverage across the continent and NZ. The different time zones suit different TV schedules and gives the competition gravitas.

2. Free to air coverage of games is the foundation for growth. Short term costs? Lower Pay TV revenue? Maybe. Smaller crowds? Possibly. But long term both will grow if there is strong free TV coverage.

Netball is a great example. As a strategic investment, they PAID channel Ten this year to cover their matches. The result of this extra exposure was major expansion, and this year THEY are being paid huge bikkies, resulting in pay rates for players for the first time in the professional realm. In comparison, the national Rugby Union competition, which you now can't get on free to air, is steadily dying.

 

[Briza]

Perfect Competition
Get rid of Cowboy's, Bronco's, Titan's, Warriors,Drizzle......

 

[The Who]

Practically speaking, 16 is a poor number because it means an uneven competition - clubs miss out on playing all others twice. The answer is to add four clubs (including one called Pacific Nations that is totally funded by the NRL. Imagine how good they would be!) to make 20 teams, and you play each team once, with weekends off for SOO and Test matches.
Either that, or you split the comp into two geographical zones of eight.

 

[wombatgc]

Netball is a great example. As a strategic investment, they PAID channel Ten this year to cover their matches. The result of this extra exposure was major expansion, and this year THEY are being paid huge bikkies, resulting in pay rates for players for the first time in the professional realm.

I thought their success was due to them making their skirts shorter.

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

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.

Alternately they could display a bit more chutzpah and switch to bagels.

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

I'm not sure if anyone has the balls for this (too many old cronies running the joint I feel) but its time for a reduction in the number of teams playing in Sydney, 9 is way way too many.

Have a look for a moment at the success of the TWO sides in Sydney for the A League.......ok I agree its not apples v apples, its a summer sport and many League followers just transition to A League to keep their "fix" of weekend sport going, however, think just a few years ago the Wanderer's didn't even exist and look at where they are now.

As far as sponsorship dollars go its going to get harder and harder for Sydney clubs to attract the dollars such as say the Donkeys get, but reduce some sides any maybe that gets a little easier.

I hate mergers (anyone remember ours??) but its just unrealistic for Sydney to have 9 teams and Brisbane to have 1.

The current CEO won't do it BUT someone has to look at reducing the Sydney market at least 2-3 sides less which would then allow, Perth, extra Brisbane and either New Zealand / Central Queensland (if 3 were eliminated).

How I'd do it would be as follows.

Penrith / Parramatta to remain as Western Sydney is heartland AND the west is a battlefield with the AFL's Greater Western Sydney and the A Leagues Wanderers

Eliminate the Tigers, a tough call but there has to be some casualty's

Merge St George and Cronulla (especially now they finally won a GF in their own right), they cover the same area in reality.

Merge two of the inner city clubs, if they won't merge pick one to eliminate.

Manly being the only club on the north side remains (and that's not being biased either).

And there you would have a 16 side competition (still), with 3 new markets opened as above NOT sides relocated, new sides, new names, new supporters.

If they wanted expansion to say 18, I'd add Adelaide and then you could fit in both CQ and a second NZ side probably based out of Wellington.

If the NRL want a CEO with the guts to do this, I'm available for a two year contract, 1.5 million a year each year, and after that BACK TO FISHING!!!

Maybe when Mike Baird finishes as Premier. He likes a few mergers.

 

[globaleagle]

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.

Hey! I have friends in Moura...! Maybe that means we're related!


Additional:

When Perth had a team....didn't they all just get on the juice as it was too far away to bother testing them?

Not sure what the answer is....regarding less teams in sydney I guess the rich ones will always be around which means parra and the dogs...eww.

I know...what about a second melbourne team?!?! (nah)

On one hand you want a team where the people support league which is why I guess you say cq all the time, yet the nrl prop up the titans continuously when the support isn't there!! Or is it there now? What's happened to newcastle? Have they survived Tinklers stuff up? Does the community still care.

anyway...the Moura thing was the most important.

 

[HoldenV8]

I thought their success was due to them making their skirts shorter.

I like the way you think hehehe

Seriously though, I grew up with an older sister who played netball so I have an appreciation for the sport that actually goes further than watching athletic women running and jumping in short shirts (did anyone watch the Fast 5 on the weekend? That was good to watch).

As for expansion, I guess the biggest risk in eventually reducing the number of Sydney teams is the impact it would have on people like us, the fans. The NRL really can't afford to go and completely alienate their core fan base in Sydney. North Sydney is a perfect example of that. When they merged with Manly some of their fans supported the NE, some even saw the light and converted to being Manly fans when the Eagles thankfully died, but a lot just gave up on the game and started supporting union, Aussie rules or soccer, or all 3. And I wonder how many Wests, Balmain, St George and probably to a lesser extent Illawarra fans did the same when their clubs merged?

Personally I don't think Sydney really needs to lose teams. I'm not sure how they could work it so that the competition is more even (a cap on TPA's maybe?), but if it can work with the AFL having most of its teams in Melbourne then the NRL can survive with 9 teams in Sydney.

 

[Bearfax]

Hey! I have friends in Moura...! Maybe that means we're related!


Additional:

When Perth had a team....didn't they all just get on the juice as it was too far away to bother testing them?

Not sure what the answer is....regarding less teams in sydney I guess the rich ones will always be around which means parra and the dogs...eww.

I know...what about a second melbourne team?!?! (nah)

On one hand you want a team where the people support league which is why I guess you say cq all the time, yet the nrl prop up the titans continuously when the support isn't there!! Or is it there now? What's happened to newcastle? Have they survived Tinklers stuff up? Does the community still care.

anyway...the Moura thing was the most important.

Perth has a solid Rugby League support base, especially given there are a lot of ex pats from NSW. They've had a competition there since 1948, and though it not a huge sport in the area, it has 9 first grade side and another three clubs with juniors only. Then there is the Pilbara competition which has another six sides. There's apparently sponsorship and a satisfactory ground to play on. In their short tenure in the League they averaged at home over 13,000 and peaked at 23,000. They've maintained the interest throughout the past two decades. I suspect the interest in Perth will far exceed that of Melbourne when the comp is established there, because it does have a strong League interest.

 

[Mals]

Perth and 2nd Brisbane team are the next logical expansion teams. With the rapid growth in Sydney's population I see no reason why we need to reduce the number of Sydney teams. This is not to say that the NRL should continue to prop up teams like the Tigers and Dragons if they cannot be self sufficient.

 

[Woodsie]

We need 4 more teams ..... then play 2 ten team conferences with the top 4 in each moving into a combined finals series.

At least that way each team in a conference plays every other team twice instead of the ridiculous draw we currently have.