Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Mergers in the NRL


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#21 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,035 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 05:17 PM

Sorry, I think you may be putting carts befire horses.
Firstly, your OP wrongly implies the merger of some Sydney rugby league clubs was a grand strategy of geographic necessity when in fact in most cases were merely reactive attempts to make the best of a bad lot in the aftermath of the Superleague wars.

I think you've completely misunderstood my first post. I wasn't implying anything at all. I was simply asking why certain clubs merged, and asked about the affects of proximity in those decisions. I'm not quite sure how you've taken that as what you've said above?

Secondly, I don't see what's great about your conference concept, bogged down by an over representation of metro Sydney teams?

I never said it was good. I just said it's a route they could have gone down had they wanted to keep traditional clubs and stay away from mergers.

Luckily for Rugby League the NRL's concept for expansion is not pins in maps atomisation of playing talent into more smaller teams. It seems pretty clear they are much more likely to push for some Sydney "franchises" to be re-located. Perth Sharks?

Based on what? When was the last time an NRL club was relocated? How on Earth can you not only make such a claim, but pass it off as "pretty clear"?!

Would a Cronulla fan rather see their club merge with another Sydney club or relocate 4,000km to the other side of the country?!

I see no evidence of the NRL looking to push out anymore Sydney clubs. They're looking to expand to more teams (18) from all the stories I've read, but haven't decided when.
Posted Image

#22 joe elliot

joe elliot
  • Coach
  • 502 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 06:15 PM

It certainly has worked for them though hasn't it, Iv never thought mergers were a good thing until looking into the Aussie example.
waddell

#23 joe elliot

joe elliot
  • Coach
  • 502 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 06:16 PM

It certainly has worked for them though hasn't it, Iv never thought mergers were a good thing until looking into the Aussie example.
waddell

#24 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,397 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:19 PM

Is the expansion of the league clear and detailed? It's been talked about for years, with various bid teams, yet noone has a clue when the expansion year will be! They keep delaying it. There's no word on whether it will ever happen!

The bit I saw on Wiki had a target date - 2016 and for 2 new teams I think? Regardless of whether any expansion goes ahead or not, the fact that the bid process is transparent and the bids themselves are in the public domain is very healthy IMHO. It shows clear direction and letting everyone know where they stand. The NRL are to be applauded for this approach.

And how can you say that the success of the competition is due to it being franchised without having it to compare to anything?

The comparison is the P&R (or at least, not far removed from and seemingly headed back there) Super League, which is a complete mess and facing oblivion (IMHO).

Do you think NRL would be where it is now if it had employed P&R following the late 90s schism?

Edited by DeadShotKeen, 11 June 2013 - 09:37 PM.


#25 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,397 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:31 PM

From Wiki and I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Gallop:

The National Rugby League adopted a hard salary cap model in its first season in 1998. The salary cap is A$5.8 million in 2013, with a salary floor of A$5.365 million (92.5% of the cap).

The NRL's stated purposes for having a salary cap are "to assist in spreading the playing talent" and "ensure that clubs are not put into positions where they are forced to spend more money than they can afford in terms of player payments, just to be competitive." [8] Before the 2012 season, the NRL's then Chief executive David Gallop said "The cap's there to make sure that pure purchasing power cannot dominate the sport... It means we can genuinely say that all 16 teams ... have a chance. For the fan every week, every game is a contest. That's at the core of why rugby league is so successful."


Clearly you can't operate such a cap floor with P&R, as I mentioned earlier. Franchising, the mergers and the cap floor are inextricably linked and without any of them it's hard to imagine that NRL would be the benchmark league that it is now.

Edited by DeadShotKeen, 11 June 2013 - 09:37 PM.


#26 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,035 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:45 PM

The bit I saw on Wiki had a target date - 2016 and for 2 new teams I think?

Yeah we've heard that before though. That day will come and it'll get postponed again, like the last few times. It's far from clear and detailed. Bid teams are just hoping and waiting for them to make their mind up.

Regardless of whether any expansion goes ahead or not, the fact that the bid process is transparent and the bids themselves are in the public domain is very healthy IMHO. It shows clear direction and letting everyone know where they stand. The NRL are to be applauded for this approach.

It does? How does everyone know where they stand more than any other system?

The comparison is the P&R Super League, which is a complete mess and facing oblivion (IMHO).

Again, how? How is it a complete mess? And how is it facing oblivion when it's coming back? Strange comment.

How can you say franchising works better than P&R by comparing NRL to SL (during P&R era)? SL hasn't exactly improved during licensing. Why not compare like for like?

Do you think NRL would be where it is now if it had employed P&R following the late 90s schism?

I wouldn't have a clue. I wouldn't be arrogant enough to say it would or wouldn't without anything to compare it to.

Edited by Wellsy4HullFC, 11 June 2013 - 09:50 PM.

Posted Image

#27 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,035 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:48 PM

From Wiki and I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Gallop:

The National Rugby League adopted a hard salary cap model in its first season in 1998. The salary cap is A$5.8 million in 2013, with a salary floor of A$5.365 million (92.5% of the cap).

The NRL's stated purposes for having a salary cap are "to assist in spreading the playing talent" and "ensure that clubs are not put into positions where they are forced to spend more money than they can afford in terms of player payments, just to be competitive." [8] Before the 2012 season, the NRL's then Chief executive David Gallop said "The cap's there to make sure that pure purchasing power cannot dominate the sport... It means we can genuinely say that all 16 teams ... have a chance. For the fan every week, every game is a contest. That's at the core of why rugby league is so successful."


Clearly you can't operate such a cap floor with P&R, as I mentioned earlier. Franchising, the mergers and the cap floor are inextricably linked and without any of them it's hard to imagine that NRL would be the benchmark league that it is now.

Why can't you?
Posted Image

#28 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,397 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:55 PM

Why can't you?

To compete you need to sign calibre players to lengthy contracts. You obviously can't do that if there is uncertainty around income streams that will inevitably reduce if you drop to a lower level. And said players would be wary of joining such clubs in the first place. There would simply be a cram towards those clubs furthest removed from relegation fear, like we see in the Euro soccer leagues and - essentially - in Super League.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users