General NRL Blueprint For The Future

[Lord Gnome of Howick MBE]

The salary cap goes up biggly next year too

 

[mt.wellington]

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!”

Based on that philosophy you'd think Brisbane and Melbourne would have had another team by now???

 

[eudebrito]

Based on that philosophy you'd think Brisbane and Melbourne would have had another team by now???

It is pretty ridiculous they don't have a competitor for the Broncos.

 

[mt.wellington]

It is pretty ridiculous they don't have a competitor for the Broncos.

For sure. Be interesting to see how it affects the Broncos when it eventually happens. Will they still get the 30K average crowds???

 

[Defence]

It is pretty ridiculous they don't have a competitor for the Broncos.

Gold Coast is only an hour away.
3 teams in qld is enough imho.
Another team in Brisbane would be diluting rather than expanding.
Perth would be my pick.

 

[snake77]

The NRL are in a good position with cities and potential bidders coming to them as potential expansion clubs. How long will that last while the NRL doesn't commit to the future layout of the competition?

Ideally a Sydney club or two would locate enabling the competition to keep the same number of clubs. Otherwise we would looking at an 18 team competition before moving to 20 teams.

The 20 teams I wouldn't envision for a long while yet. Therefore moving to a 18 teams the bidding process would be pretty competitive. At the moment Perth would probably be favoured with the time zone, new stadium. Then it is down to another Queensland club with Brisbane usually written as a favourite or Central Coast or Wellington.

 

[eudebrito]

Gold Coast is only an hour away.
3 teams in qld is enough imho.
Another team in Brisbane would be diluting rather than expanding.
Perth would be my pick.

I’m a socialist when it comes blokes chasing a ball around – everyone should get the same resources and someone ends up on the top of pile each year due to luck or cunning.

Brisbane just sticks out like a sore thumb with 2-3 times the crowd numbers of anyone else, the best stadium and first shot at any good player for hundreds of miles around.

9 teams in greater sydney - too many!

 

[Defence]

I’m a socialist when it comes blokes chasing a ball around – everyone should get the same resources and someone ends up on the top of pile each year due to luck or cunning.

Brisbane just sticks out like a sore thumb with 2-3 times the crowd numbers of anyone else, the best stadium and first shot at any good player for hundreds of miles around.

9 teams in greater sydney - too many!

Very true. I'd rather they try build the struggling clubs up than water the successful ones down tho.
I think they need to make a hard call in Sydney.

 

[Akkerz]

Not keen on Perth. Too isolated & horrendous travelling time. It would take too much of a toll on teams. We have already seen how it affects our mob.

 

[Dunedin warrior]

It depends what the nrl are after. If it's more broadcasting revenue Perth is the obvious choice particularly if the force get culled from super rugby.

If they want to expand their player depth so that they have enough players for future expansion into non nrl countries/states, a 2nd Nrl team here with our rugby union numbers or PNG would be the best choice.

 

[Blain]

PNG would never fly, it's a 3rd world (or Developing) country with serious safety issues. The money isn't there for the NRL either in terms of sponsorship or TV deals. The Qld cup side is fantastic for the country, but I can't see how a fully professional NRL side would work.

Perth would suck for the players and viewers, but could be the most beneficial for the NRL. However the Force suck, don't get many fans to the games and have had to be bailed out by ARU on 2 occasions I think? I'd take a guess that an NRL club would face similar problems.

The culling/relocation of a Sydney team would be great. I'd take a guess that Brisbane don't have a second side already is because the power and money the Broncos possess. When you have the Thoroughbreds paying players huge sums without even being linked to the club, that's the sign of Money = Power. Marshall laughs off a $500k deal on TV, and apparently signs to play QLD cup for the Broncos for $100k a season? Bullshit. David Mead the same, said he wanted to play fullback and wanted $300k+.

For NZ to get a second team, first the Warriors need to become a top side in the comp for an extended period. The talent is here, a solid fan base is here. Once the Warriors don't get laughed at and made fun of by every Kiwi who doesn't support them, the support base would be there to get another side in.

ATM the Warriors are seen as a joke, you can't introduce another side into the country when this is what potential fans portray as Rugby League.

 

[snake77]

I think they need to make a hard call in Sydney.

All of the talk before the Commission was formed was that they would look at the competition structure. All of the analysts were always going on about this wonderful utopia where the Commission would fix all of the games issues. Now everyone is down on the Commission and some of it is justified. But if you look at the ownership structure of the NRL now and what we saw with the clubs the funding at the end of last year and pulling a power play how is the Commission supposed to cut any of the Sydney clubs.

Not having a go at you as I agree less Sydney clubs either merged, moved, culled would be better in terms of adding new clubs or cities. I just can't see how it will happen when you factor in the above points. Even if they go broke the NRL will most likely bail them out to maintain the number of clubs equals the broadcast deal.

A few of the league identities like to cry poor on the disadvantages the Sydney clubs have while conveniently forgetting the advantage of less travel is forgotten. They are disadvantaged with finding sponsorship due to the competitive marketplace. They can only cry poor for so long as the sport/competition needs to grow.

Gould likes to list the Broncos advantages. We need more clubs pulling in crowds like they do.

 

[Defence]

All of the talk before the Commission was formed was that they would look at the competition structure. All of the analysts were always going on about this wonderful utopia where the Commission would fix all of the games issues. Now everyone is down on the Commission and some of it is justified. But if you look at the ownership structure of the NRL now and what we saw with the clubs the funding at the end of last year and pulling a power play how is the Commission supposed to cut any of the Sydney clubs.

Not having a go at you as I agree less Sydney clubs either merged, moved, culled would be better in terms of adding new clubs or cities. I just can't see how it will happen when you factor in the above points. Even if they go broke the NRL will most likely bail them out to maintain the number of clubs equals the broadcast deal.

A few of the league identities like to cry poor on the disadvantages the Sydney clubs have while conveniently forgetting the advantage of less travel is forgotten. They are disadvantaged with finding sponsorship due to the competitive marketplace. They can only cry poor for so long as the sport/competition needs to grow.

Gould likes to list the Broncos advantages. We need more clubs pulling in crowds like they do.

It is hard because there's so much history at some of them Sydney clubs.
I thought they had a golden opportunity a couple of years ago when the sharks were really struggling on and off the field to relocate them (Perth sharks?) but now they're the reigning premiers haha.
The thing is if a Sydney team is relocated they're still gonna be playing half their games in Sydney anyway so their fans can still get to see them live if they're keen enough. Some teams would probably be keen to play their own home games at shark park (using that example) like the bulldogs did in chch- u know it would sell out.
But yeah this is all from the outside looking in- not doubt it's not that easy.

 

[snake77]

It is hard because there's so much history at some of them Sydney clubs.
I thought they had a golden opportunity a couple of years ago when the sharks were really struggling on and off the field to relocate them (Perth sharks?) but now they're the reigning premiers haha.
The thing is if a Sydney team is relocated they're still gonna be playing half their games in Sydney anyway so their fans can still get to see them live if they're keen enough. Some teams would probably be keen to play their own home games at shark park (using that example) like the bulldogs did in chch- u know it would sell out.
But yeah this is all from the outside looking in- not doubt it's not that easy

Same argument with Souths a few years ago. They should relocate as they have been struggling for years, fan base is coming out a bit now as they have a celebirty owner and becoming fashionable but would still rank as one of the lower Sydney clubs if you were going to rank who would stay put. Then what happens they go and win a premiership.

The Sydney clubs have survival instincts like rats.

If any of them relocated they would probably play 1-2 home games in Sydney due to the old supporter base. If you move you probably want to be "all in" in terms of committing to the new city or region. The idea instead of the other sides moving their home game to get a bit of nostalgia or boost in the attendance is interesting. That does open up another debate as the old grounds would get less maintenance without an NRL side attached to it so at some point they wouldn't meet the minimum requirements.

I can't see the NRL competition changing much in future besides possibly 2 expansion teams coming in from the current bidders. That would likely line up with a new broadcast deal.

Any other changes would surely need rationalization or relocation.

 

[Defence]

Same argument with Souths a few years ago. They should relocate as they have been struggling for years, fan base is coming out a bit now as they have a celebirty owner and becoming fashionable but would still rank as one of the lower Sydney clubs if you were going to rank who would stay put. Then what happens they go and win a premiership.

The Sydney clubs have survival instincts like rats.

If any of them relocated they would probably play 1-2 home games in Sydney due to the old supporter base. If you move you probably want to be "all in" in terms of committing to the new city or region. The idea instead of the other sides moving their home game to get a bit of nostalgia or boost in the attendance is interesting. That does open up another debate as the old grounds would get less maintenance without an NRL side attached to it so at some point they wouldn't meet the minimum requirements.

I can't see the NRL competition changing much in future besides possibly 2 expansion teams coming in from the current bidders. That would likely line up with a new broadcast deal.

Any other changes would surely need rationalization or relocation.

Just to make myself clear what I meant when I said they would still be playing half their games in Sydney- I was referring to all the away games they would have against the Sydney teams- could probably even manipulate the draw a bit to have them play all the Sydney teams twice or something.

 

[snake77]

Just to make myself clear what I meant when I said they would still be playing half their games in Sydney- I was referring to all the away games they would have against the Sydney teams- could probably even manipulate the draw a bit to have them play all the Sydney teams twice or something.

Yeah I got that the first time. Problem was I came back to post later and misread it. Life was easier a few weeks ago before I uninstalled one of our security products which would block the site and I couldn't post during the day.

That is a good point though with all of the discussion on relocating. They would still have quite a few games in Sydney each year. The long standing fans would still have a chance to see their team play, the main fear for the administrators and fans is losing their side but that thinking is always on people thinking about home games.

Moving teams is more common with American sport. The unique thing with the NRL/Sydney situation is that the sides could move but still have a presence back in their former Sydney due to the saturation of teams there. It would be different if the Titans, Raiders or Knights looked to move their current base would be lost.

 

[bruce]

I’m a socialist when it comes blokes chasing a ball around – everyone should get the same resources and someone ends up on the top of pile each year due to luck or cunning.

Brisbane just sticks out like a sore thumb with 2-3 times the crowd numbers of anyone else, the best stadium and first shot at any good player for hundreds of miles around.

9 teams in greater sydney - too many!

When the Warriors were first mooted way back in 1990, the NZ officials were given a confidential briefing on the state of the Winfield Cup competition. I am sure part of that was the demise of the Winfield sponsorship, I reckon the other might have been too many cubs in Sydney, which after all was the point of the 1995 rebellion from Brisbane. Almost 30 years later and what has changed? The Bears and Balmain have gone.These guys are real progressive thinkers.

 

[Johnnyray]

When the Warriors were first mooted way back in 1990, the NZ officials were given a confidential briefing on the state of the Winfield Cup competition. I am sure part of that was the demise of the Winfield sponsorship, I reckon the other might have been too many cubs in Sydney, which after all was the point of the 1995 rebellion from Brisbane. Almost 30 years later and what has changed? The Bears and Balmain have gone.These guys are real progressive thinkers.

That wasn't same report that got leaked to press around same time club was admitted to competition in 1992 ? I really don't remember reading all details but I do remember reading how Campbelltown ARL Bid from early 1980s still had ARL rights to name "Warriors" (as that what they were going to call their team if they were admitted into competition) and could be owed compensation if we used it even though their bid had failed. The reason behind why it had failed and why Canberra was admitted into competiton instead of Campbelltown all had to do with the politics at the time and how the politicians there was basically able to bribe ARL to bring team into the territory. Just think in an alternate universe Mal Meninga, Jonah Lomax, Laurie Daley, Noa Nadruku, Ricky Stuart, Glen Lazarus all played for Warriors !

 

[Beastmode]

I reckon a christchurch team would do us proud. Those farm boys know hard work and wouldnt slack off. Canterbury's magic ingredient. No big city distractions or ego's. Just good old fashion clean living. Up at 5am to milk the cow, in bed by 8.

I also think that nth qlds secret. Nothing else to do but milk the cow and live, breath footy all day....

Now compare that to our fucking mob who think they're big shot celebrities giving bull shit interviews about how much they want to win, going to late night concerts, playing gcards at 3am in the morning mixed in with sleeping pills, red bull and anti-depressants....

 

[bruce]

I also think that nth qlds secret. Nothing else to do but milk the cow and live, breath footy all day....

There are no cows or cowboys in Townsville. That is a longstanding joke.

I reckon a christchurch team would do us proud.

Hey Zeuss, they are a rugby town and can't even fill the Riccarton Showgrounds for Super Rugby.