General NRL Blueprint For The Future

Where should the next NRL team come from?

  • Sydney

  • Perth

  • Brisbane

  • Adelaide

  • NZ

  • PNG


Results are only viewable after voting.
We are having a mature discussion and I have acknowledged some of the good points you have raised but you are crapping on about one point that is not relevant. A draft spreads the talent and the examples I gave have shown it spreads the talent. I'm not sure what your point is going on and on about the teams that have had high draft picks and then not won championships? The best understanding I can get is that you're trying to say the draft doesn't do a good enough job of spreading the talent. Surely it is better than not having a draft at all when there would be no spread of talent at all?? You say there was no way but up for those clubs - umm they could stop existing and that is a serious proposition for the NRL clubs in a similar position.
You say the Bulls are the standout there but I would say (based on gut feel rather than hard data) that the Cavaliers' acquisition of LeBron had more of an impact than the Bulls picking up Rose.
All of those things you talk about around the interest of scouting, watching, analysing players before being drafted came about because of the draft. A decade from now maybe the NRL has all of those things around it's draft (to scale of course).
All I know is there is a massive problem facing the NRL right now about how best to spread the talent of players. The NYC hasn't worked - most clubs want it gone. The top sides assemble sides twice as good as the bottom sides now (maybe not five years ago but they do now) but somehow spend the same money on those players - how? There is no way you can reduce the cap with more money coming into the game than ever before. TPAs are a problem but the players won't allow them to be removed, they will hardly go back on something they reverted to just a few seasons ago. So how do you spread the talent evenly?
A draft looks the best option at this point.

TPAs are the problem, I don't think tampering with them per se` is the cure, because it is inevitable to be unenforceable. There are two options. One, which is very much impossible to police (although I think I have heard some sports do it), all payments whether they be direct or TPAs are paid via the NRL who then account for their value, and from there, similar to the US you get a luxury tax for going over - clubs then can't afford to keep doing it. Hard to control, and I don't like it because it is still open to fraud. The second I think is that the NRL analyses the relevant economic worths of each club - so, for example, Canberra. Small market, hard to attract TPAs, at a distinct disadvantage. The NRL estimates that the Roosters for example have an extra $2m of TPAs than Canberra can access, so Canberra are given an extra $2m that they are to spend. As long as the financial metrics are transparent, it has the potential (and I say potential but no system, not even a draft is fullproof nor can we fully foresee how it would work) to create equity.

Sadly, I think the crapping on comment has gone on long enough FWIW (you for some reason wish to keep repeating it). Whilst I enjoyed this debate up until now, it is getting somewhat immature so I will be letting you debate this one on your own for here out. All the best.
 
We are having a mature discussion and I have acknowledged some of the good points you have raised but you are crapping on about one point that is not relevant. A draft spreads the talent and the examples I gave have shown it spreads the talent. I'm not sure what your point is going on and on about the teams that have had high draft picks and then not won championships? The best understanding I can get is that you're trying to say the draft doesn't do a good enough job of spreading the talent. Surely it is better than not having a draft at all when there would be no spread of talent at all?? You say there was no way but up for those clubs - umm they could stop existing and that is a serious proposition for the NRL clubs in a similar position.
You say the Bulls are the standout there but I would say (based on gut feel rather than hard data) that the Cavaliers' acquisition of LeBron had more of an impact than the Bulls picking up Rose.
All of those things you talk about around the interest of scouting, watching, analysing players before being drafted came about because of the draft. A decade from now maybe the NRL has all of those things around it's draft (to scale of course).
All I know is there is a massive problem facing the NRL right now about how best to spread the talent of players. The NYC hasn't worked - most clubs want it gone. The top sides assemble sides twice as good as the bottom sides now (maybe not five years ago but they do now) but somehow spend the same money on those players - how? There is no way you can reduce the cap with more money coming into the game than ever before. TPAs are a problem but the players won't allow them to be removed, they will hardly go back on something they reverted to just a few seasons ago. So how do you spread the talent evenly?
A draft looks the best option at this point.


Of course they do, it's a completely level playing field. Giving the lower teams the opportunity to pick the best young players won't change the fact Canberra is a cold shit hole and Ricky Stuart needs a Brad Fittler to be a good coach, or that Jason Taylor seems to be able to alienate his players or that Parra and their board are an absolute basketcase. We all know potential and promise doesn't mean long term success and even forcing a 2 year contract onto a draft player doesn't mean they will be there long enough to bring that turn around. If they reach their potential their market value will go up and possibly make them too expensive for a struggling club to keep, meaning they invest the time and donkey work into a player that walks the minute they are able because they may not have wanted to be there in the first place, in comes a team with better accountants or a bit of coastline line to collect a player with the rough edges knocked off, or if no one is chasing the third year player may be they weren't that good in the first place.
 
TPAs are the problem, I don't think tampering with them per se` is the cure, because it is inevitable to be unenforceable. There are two options. One, which is very much impossible to police (although I think I have heard some sports do it), all payments whether they be direct or TPAs are paid via the NRL who then account for their value, and from there, similar to the US you get a luxury tax for going over - clubs then can't afford to keep doing it. Hard to control, and I don't like it because it is still open to fraud. The second I think is that the NRL analyses the relevant economic worths of each club - so, for example, Canberra. Small market, hard to attract TPAs, at a distinct disadvantage. The NRL estimates that the Roosters for example have an extra $2m of TPAs than Canberra can access, so Canberra are given an extra $2m that they are to spend. As long as the financial metrics are transparent, it has the potential (and I say potential but no system, not even a draft is fullproof nor can we fully foresee how it would work) to create equity.

Sadly, I think the crapping on comment has gone on long enough FWIW (you for some reason wish to keep repeating it). Whilst I enjoyed this debate up until now, it is getting somewhat immature so I will be letting you debate this one on your own for here out. All the best.
Not sure where you find anything immature here. I criticised a point you keep making for being irrelevant and I stand by that. Nothing personal at all - I'm enjoying the debate.
Your ideas around the TPAs do have some obvious flaws - you pointed some out but how would the the club grants be handed out? Would the Raiders get more than the Roosters under your idea? Again I point out that the existing clubs control things nowadays so we can basically rule out any club getting any addition money to spend on the cap or the cap to be anything other than even across the 16 existing clubs.
 
Of course they do, it's a completely level playing field. Giving the lower teams the opportunity to pick the best young players won't change the fact Canberra is a cold shit hole and Ricky Stuart needs a Brad Fittler to be a good coach, or that Jason Taylor seems to be able to alienate his players or that Parra and their board are an absolute basketcase. We all know potential and promise doesn't mean long term success and even forcing a 2 year contract onto a draft player doesn't mean they will be there long enough to bring that turn around. If they reach their potential their market value will go up and possibly make them too expensive for a struggling club to keep, meaning they invest the time and donkey work into a player that walks the minute they are able because they may not have wanted to be there in the first place, in comes a team with better accountants or a bit of coastline line to collect a player with the rough edges knocked off, or if no one is chasing the third year player may be they weren't that good in the first place.
Some of what you say is correct but again - surely having some talented players for the duration of a rookie contract is better than not having them at all? Were the Warriors better off without Maloney (i know not a rookie but on essentially a rookie deal, played well, made a name for himself and left as a free agent)?
Surely you don't think the Raiders have the same opportunity as the Roosters to attract players? In just five years we have got a clear group of glamour teams that will only continue to get stronger as the cap goes up while the lesser teams will get progressively worse unless something changes.
Do we axe Canberra because its cold or Melbourne because it is too hard? Hell we might as well go back to being a Sydney club competition. At least Gus Gould would be happy.
 
Some of what you say is correct but again - surely having some talented players for the duration of a rookie contract is better than not having them at all? Were the Warriors better off without Maloney (i know not a rookie but on essentially a rookie deal, played well, made a name for himself and left as a free agent)?
Surely you don't think the Raiders have the same opportunity as the Roosters to attract players? In just five years we have got a clear group of glamour teams that will only continue to get stronger as the cap goes up while the lesser teams will get progressively worse unless something changes.
Do we axe Canberra because its cold or Melbourne because it is too hard? Hell we might as well go back to being a Sydney club competition. At least Gus Gould would be happy.


My points aren't even so much about the rookies and the draft, but that the struggling teams still need to attract the experience and having first draft choice isn't going to make the difference of an elite player going a team they don't want to be part of. Promising juniors are the icing not the answer. Winning a comp is what every player wants, helping turn around a bottom four team doesn't have the same ring as premiership.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gREVUS
My points aren't even so much about the rookies and the draft, but that the struggling teams still need to attract the experience and having first draft choice isn't going to make the difference of an elite player going a team they don't want to be part of. Promising juniors are the icing not the answer. Winning a comp is what every player wants, helping turn around a bottom four team doesn't have the same ring as premiership.
No I agree with you here. However while current rookies might feel the way you describe in time, when this proposed system is the norm, it will just become part of the game. While you can't compare everything about the US style drafts the best rookies over there get sent to smaller budget teams and places where winning a championship isn't realistic at least to begin with. The players still go and give it their all as they will here once it becomes the norm. There will be resistance to start with but if the rules become set in stone they'll get over it quickly.
 
I agree it won't fix all the problems but it will certainly help. I'd also like to see a way for the players to get their share of future revenue but not see the cap go up so quickly. Maybe more money could go into player superannuation packages etc, maybe with expansion to two new locations the players will still get the same percentage of income as a total but each team won't have more to spend on its roster. The 2000s had the right balance and the comp was great but as the new TV deals poured more money into the game they lost the balance.
 

bruce

Contributor
Where did you get those numbers?
Just guessing.

My rough tally is the population of NSW is about 7.5 million, Queensland and NZ between them are about 9 million add in the ACT the total (not counting Victoria and WA) is almost 17 million.
Victoria has 5.8 million, SA is 1.7 and WA 2.5. Add in Tasmania and the Northern Territories the total interested populations are probably similar but less than for NRL.

Ok you can say some people don't follow any sport, but that would go for AFL as well.

Interest in the NRL is widespread in NZ, it is the same but probably more intense in NSW and Queensland.

AFL has a greater area but not a greater population.

That is reflected in TV ratings as well I think.

So I think there is sufficient population to have a professional game.

Where the problem comes is there are too many teams and not enough star players. So the stars are getting over the odds as clubs fight for them and the rest suffer because there are so many of that mediocre standard. If there were fewer clubs many of the mediocre players would go to rugby somewhere but the product would be dynamic with a greater spread of the salary cap.

I read somewhere the same is happening in the English Football Premier League. That is a reason given for the poor record of those clubs in the Champions League.

A case in point is the All Blacks. The game bleeds talent to rugby overseas but because the All Blacks are the main breadwinner the NZRFU can afford to compete with salaries to keep the best players on the planet.

Just an opinion...everybody has one.:confused:
 

matiunz

This year yet?
Contributor
Just guessing.

My rough tally is the population of NSW is about 7.5 million, Queensland and NZ between them are about 9 million add in the ACT the total (not counting Victoria and WA) is almost 17 million.
Victoria has 5.8 million, SA is 1.7 and WA 2.5. Add in Tasmania and the Northern Territories the total interested populations are probably similar but less than for NRL.

Ok you can say some people don't follow any sport, but that would go for AFL as well.

Interest in the NRL is widespread in NZ, it is the same but probably more intense in NSW and Queensland.

AFL has a greater area but not a greater population.

That is reflected in TV ratings as well I think.

So I think there is sufficient population to have a professional game.

Where the problem comes is there are too many teams and not enough star players. So the stars are getting over the odds as clubs fight for them and the rest suffer because there are so many of that mediocre standard. If there were fewer clubs many of the mediocre players would go to rugby somewhere but the product would be dynamic with a greater spread of the salary cap.

I read somewhere the same is happening in the English Football Premier League. That is a reason given for the poor record of those clubs in the Champions League.

A case in point is the All Blacks. The game bleeds talent to rugby overseas but because the All Blacks are the main breadwinner the NZRFU can afford to compete with salaries to keep the best players on the planet.

Just an opinion...everybody has one.:confused:

Easier option Google-population of Australia :p (23.1M for those keeping score)

League is massively popular in Sydney a lot more so than in NZ, the media coverage and hype is similar to what Union enjoys in NZ(maybe even more) from what I understand Brisbane and Queensland are pretty similar, the rest of the country doesn't really give a shit about it really especially Vic/SA/WA where they are AFL mad(probably more so the NSW/Queensland is with NRL)

In Sydney Especially in the West Soccer is making massive inroads into the sporting landscape and is ready made for the demographics that live there and are growing in numbers, if league isn't careful there is a very real risk they can lose a lot of ground in this area. Out of The 12.2M in Queensland and NSW I'm not sure even how many of them would support league. As it is there seems to be a shrinking audience rather than a growing one if things don't change sadly

With the All Blacks example they simply can't compete with the money being offered overseas, the only way they keep players is the lure of playing for the all blacks-how long that will last I don't know.
 

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
My points aren't even so much about the rookies and the draft, but that the struggling teams still need to attract the experience and having first draft choice isn't going to make the difference of an elite player going a team they don't want to be part of. Promising juniors are the icing not the answer. Winning a comp is what every player wants, helping turn around a bottom four team doesn't have the same ring as premiership.

This follows what i have been thinking for some time. The solution doesnt lie with the kids coming through, it relies on lots of other factors like spreading the Comp out of Sydney, giving teams that have to travel more, an increase in the cap to attract better players and counter the TPA that players can earn in heavily NRL based economies. A draft will not solve problems for struggling clubs. It just means that every club has the opportunity to take a player that they may or may not want, (if u take a gun young player even if you dont need him, you deny him to another team, why not it doesnt cost you anything).

The AFL draft is not universally loved. Many here in Melb would like to see it gone. And like everything as soon as it was put in place why wouldnt it be set up to benefit the bulk of the clubs in the same region?
 

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
I agree it won't fix all the problems but it will certainly help. I'd also like to see a way for the players to get their share of future revenue but not see the cap go up so quickly. Maybe more money could go into player superannuation packages etc, maybe with expansion to two new locations the players will still get the same percentage of income as a total but each team won't have more to spend on its roster. The 2000s had the right balance and the comp was great but as the new TV deals poured more money into the game they lost the balance.
Given the amount that the cap has gone up, do TPAs still have as much effect as they used to. I know that sounds a little simple minded but the percentage of their income based on TPAs vs the amount they get from the clubs directly must have altered with the top players receiving so much? So if TV income continues to drive up the pay for players that percentage would continue to decrease(?) Would this be enough to counter the TPA draw to places like Sydney?
 

bruce

Contributor
League is massively popular in Sydney a lot more so than in NZ,
Yes it is, but the game is still very popular here compared with 40 years ago. Also it is not so much that league is popular in Sydney it is that rugby hardly exists in comparison. TV ratings don't lie. If SkyTV lost the Nrl they might go broke.
With the All Blacks example they simply can't compete with the money being offered overseas, the only way they keep players is the lure of playing for the all blacks-how long that will last I don't know.
True, but because they only have ONE team they get enough of the best. The only guys they lose to overseas are the odd star e.g.Nick Evans who are getting really big money or lesser lights who are more easily replaced. If the NZRFU had to run two All Black teams e.g.North and South they would have a problem.
 
True, but because they only have ONE team they get enough of the best. The only guys they lose to overseas are the odd star e.g.Nick Evans who are getting really big money or lesser lights who are more easily replaced. If the NZRFU had to run two All Black teams e.g.North and South they would have a problem.

Yeah, this was kind of my point - having only one fully professional sports team in a country says a lot about the limitations imposed by New Zealand's population. Similarly with Australia where they have enough people for a competition like AFL, but its still salary capped I believe?
 

bruce

Contributor
Yeah, this was kind of my point - having only one fully professional sports team in a country says a lot about the limitations imposed by New Zealand's population. Similarly with Australia where they have enough people for a competition like AFL, but its still salary capped I believe?
Having one in NZ is just fine, when Brisbane had two it didn't work but arguably they could have another try. I don't know how many AFL sides are left in Melbourne but IMO Sydney has far too many NRL sides and because the comp is based there they get it easy and drag the standard down. The sad thing is that the ARL knew that when they expanded the comp in 1995.
 

matiunz

This year yet?
Contributor
Having one in NZ is just fine, when Brisbane had two it didn't work but arguably they could have another try. I don't know how many AFL sides are left in Melbourne but IMO Sydney has far too many NRL sides and because the comp is based there they get it easy and drag the standard down. The sad thing is that the ARL knew that when they expanded the comp in 1995.

AFL has 9/18 teams in Melbourne and another pretty close in Geelong so are arguably in a worse state than Sydney and I believe a number of their clubs are in financial difficulties also. The national pride aspect of "Australia's game" is probably one of the things saving them.

From what I understand the Broncos had a pretty big part in strong arming the Crushers out of the competition but if there was to be expansion it seems to be almost a sure thing that a second Brisbane would enter.
Perth seems to be another "certainty" with the time zone and national footprint but it wouldn't surprise me if a 2nd NZ side was also introduced as it seems to be in vogue at the moment to create derbys in sport with 2 teams in the major areas (both a-league and afl do this) plus with the new Friday time slot that seems almost custom built for an NZ side.
 
IMO Sydney has far too many NRL sides and because the comp is based there they get it easy and drag the standard down. The sad thing is that the ARL knew that when they expanded the comp in 1995.
My dad, who played for Norths way back when, is still extremely poisonous about how the ARL could force a merger on a foundation team and then unceremoniously dump them from the competition. Meanwhile the Western Sydney clusterfuck was ignored where 4 teams represent essentially one area.

With regards to expansion. If there HAD to be a second New Zealand team I would put it in Nelson. Just an hour or so ferry ride to Wellington, can stake a claim on the South Island, and the weather is actually good in Nelson as opposed to the miserable air tunnel they call Wellington. You get that one-team town Townsville vibe from Nelson.
 

matiunz

This year yet?
Contributor
My dad, who played for Norths way back when, is still extremely poisonous about how the ARL could force a merger on a foundation team and then unceremoniously dump them from the competition. Meanwhile the Western Sydney clusterfuck was ignored where 4 teams represent essentially one area.

With regards to expansion. If there HAD to be a second New Zealand team I would put it in Nelson. Just an hour or so ferry ride to Wellington, can stake a claim on the South Island, and the weather is actually good in Nelson as opposed to the miserable air tunnel they call Wellington. You get that one-team town Townsville vibe from Nelson.

Just a question-does your dad still follow League? And if so who does he support now that norths are gone?

One argument I often hear is that if Sydney were to lose a team fans would be lost forever and the classic example is the Norths fans apparently jumping ship to the swans and the Waratahs.
 
Just a question-does your dad still follow League? And if so who does he support now that norths are gone?

One argument I often hear is that if Sydney were to lose a team fans would be lost forever and the classic example is the Norths fans apparently jumping ship to the swans and the Waratahs.
He still gets to their games now and again when they're on, he's a proud Norths man and still dirty on Manly, I played my juniors when I was 10-12 there before I moved back to NZ and we were close with the Forans because they were juniors there too. He was disillusioned with the NRL for a while but now he's moved up the coast and supports Newcastle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: matiunz