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.
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.

I was referring to the all blacks
 

matiunz

This year yet?
Contributor
They were treated disgracefully. If Manly went broke it would be justice for what they did to Norths.

Always had a soft spot for Norths, it sucks that they did everything asked of them from the NRL to survive (including involving the central coast) only to be shafted by manly. Would rather the CC Bears came in at the expense of manly
 

matiunz

This year yet?
Contributor
One example of the politics in Sydney, the Souths debacle was another.

I guess I see Souths as almost the opposite situation to Norths in a way, getting rid of Souths is probably the poster child of the NRL trying to fix the "Sydney problem" and then getting forced to give in to the Sydney politics.

Prior to the rationalisation Souths were a basket case both off the field and on it where they were pretty much the easy beats for years. Geographically they are smack bang in the middle of Roosters/Dragons/Tigers territory and if emotion was taken out of the equation they were a pretty logical choice to go. I remember talks of a possible merger with the Sharks at the time and it would have made sense to be the actual southern Sydney team, but in the end they tried to go it alone and were cut.
In terms of support a large portion of that only came out of the woodwork once they were cut from the league, hell even now there's rumours of some of their memberships being gifted through charity.

Norths on the other hand whilst not setting the world alight on the field were still faring better than a lot of the Sydney teams at the time. Geographically were in a now underrepresented part of Sydney (population 1million +) and had embraced a strategic growth area in the central coast. Finances proved to be their downfall as well as fans not embracing the merged team and ultimately Manly struck and killed them off. I still find it harsh that teams had the "merge/relocate and survive" policy and Norths essentially did both and were cut.

I find it ironic that Norths is now Souths feeder team and expansion talks are for teams we already had less than 20 years ago.
 
This shows the areas the Sydney sides traditionally represented and where the are now.

image.jpg
 
I'm all for expansion but at the same time I'm a bit of a traditionalist so I'd hate to see any of these clubs disappear ( norths were the first team I followed ).
So relocation would be my preference. Sharks to Perth, dragons to Adelaide and souths to represent southern NSW as opposed to southern Sydney city.
Also bring back the Bears but similar to sths, have them representing northern NSW rather than north Sydney.
 
Last edited:
All pie in the sky stuff sadly. The existing teams are calling the shots now.
To play along though - In an ideal world I would kill off the Tigers, Sharks and Eels - The Bulldogs would cater for the inner west while Panthers (maybe renamed) could be the outer west. I'd expand into Perth and Brisbane and the 16th team would come from either NZ (if it could be done properly) or I'd put the Bears back on the Central Coast.
 

bruce

Contributor
souths to represent southern NSW as opposed to southern Sydney city.
South Sydney is a city in its own right at present. Southern NSW has traditionally been a Dragons stronghold and was one of the reasons Illawarra were so keen to merge with them. The most sensible club was Norths trying to spread north to the Central Coast which is screaming for an NRL team, and they get booted.

I think the death of Balmain shows a lot of the support was from the older generation, and Souths is a little the same except for the Redfern people. In theory Wests should be able to go it alone but that doesn't seem to be the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Defence
Which has had only 5 different clubs win it since '92 and only really has the same 4-5 contenders each year-is that what we want for the NRL?

Twenty something clubs have won it?

It depends on what model you want;

* England has a profesional football club for every 400,000 people or so and clubs of various sizes exist with the possibility of promotion to the promised land - that would give Australasia 62 teams

* NFL has a team for every 10m people, which would be three teams playing in front of 100,000 people each week - one in each code?

Obviously those numbers includes NRL, AFL and super buggery teams in this region where fooball code allegiances are split.
 
Last edited:
I was living in Sydney when the Newtown Jets were kicked out of the comp (1983).
They were a great club but were too close to the inner city and between Souths and Wests Magpies.
Wests managed to survive and amalgamated with Balmain which was never going to work as working class Wests and Toffee nosed Balmain had no common ground.
 

eudebrito

|-|
Contributor
Would be good to move the Tigers to Brisbane – how many western Sydney teams do you need – and expand to Perth.

Though 17 teams throws the draw into a bit of chaos, have to go to more weeks with less games per week and more byes.

The warriors have basically killed any hope for an NZ expansion franchise.
 
Would be good to move the Tigers to Brisbane – how many western Sydney teams do you need – and expand to Perth.

Though 17 teams throws the draw into a bit of chaos, have to go to more weeks with less games per week and more byes.

The warriors have basically killed any hope for an NZ expansion franchise.

I don't think the Warriors performance record will have any connection to whether or not there's another NZ franchise in the NRL.

The NRL, quite rightly, will expand/relocate in Australia before even considering NZ Team No 2 or PNG Team No 1....
 

eudebrito

|-|
Contributor
I don't think the Warriors performance record will have any connection to whether or not there's another NZ franchise in the NRL.

The NRL, quite rightly, will expand/relocate in Australia before even considering NZ Team No 2 or PNG Team No 1....

Well, if we were any good and turning away fans at the gate, the NRL could argue “we must limit the success of the warriors by creating a rival kiwi team!”

But the club sucks and the code is stuck in neutral.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Defence
Sorry but screw that ! Here's what I keep saying that they should do : Move West Tigers to Tasmania, let Perth have their own team, Perth Pirates, move Sharks to Rockhampton, give Brisbane a second team but this time do what you should of done first time you put team there and that's move one of their QLD cup sides up into first grade ie Redcliffe Dolphins. Bring back Rams in Adelaide, merge Bears with Melbourne and give Central Coast their own team ie Central Coast Cossacks. There's your new and expanded, seven states and territories, plus two counties, cross international, twenty team NRL competition everybody ... :p
 
Terrible idea. Tigers should permanent move to central/west Sydney. Rocky, like Tassie are too small for NRL clubs and employment/economies would struggle to compete with larger cities for sponsorships. Perth can have their own team, much like Brisbane which would work with a QLD Cup team. Manly need to move to CC and the Bears can have the GC
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
1K
LordGnome_old
Replies
8
Views
1K
MiXmasterreece_old
Replies
10
Views
1K
daj3_old
Replies
33
Views
2K
Ryan_old