NRL to clubs: relocate or fold

[Rupert Prince]

8 hours ago, fevtom said:

Call me old fashioned but this is why I prefer the British model. Look at how the fans reacted at Widnes, look at how the emotion around the trouble Bolton Wanderers are in. You get a real feel that the club is the heart of a community. There's nothing wrong with starting a new club but saying that a rugby club can just move or fold and no one does anything about it seems a really alien concept.

It may be a good idea or not... But certainly if we look at Welsh Rugby then there is huge controversy over merging and recreating clubs. Australia, a huge continental sized and immigrant country, may be different. I don't know.

[Rupert Prince]

5 hours ago, Farmduck said:

On last year's figures the top Sydney clubs were Souths and Wests

If there were 2 Brisbane clubs ...  well would existing Broncos still continue support them? Or would the current pool of Broncos fans conveniently split?  Or is there an untapped well of non Broncos fans sitting on their hands and waiting frustratingly for a new club in Brisbane 

[Farmduck]

18 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

If there were 2 Brisbane clubs ...  well would existing Broncos still continue support them? Or would the current pool of Broncos fans conveniently split?  Or is there an untapped well of non Broncos fans sitting on their hands and waiting frustratingly for a new club in Brisbane 

Hard to say. The Crushers averaged 21K home crowds the first year, 13K the second year then 7K their last year, which was the Super League year. That suggests that the crowd went with the Broncos. It's a difficult comparison because the Crushers played at the old Lang Park which held about 22K and the Broncos played at QEII stadium which held 55K

[Gooleboy]

7 hours ago, Allora said:

It was done decades ago.

Remember Perth Reds?

[Oliver Clothesoff]

I struggle to understand how there’s a perception that there are too many Sydney clubs. To me, an English person, it seems like us saying “there’s too many teams across the M62”. 

The nine clubs currently in the NRL have been about for years, why is now the time that some need disbanding (this is what it is, I’m not having that a team being moved from end of the country to the other is the same team) to make a more national league. 

[Allora]

2 hours ago, Gooleboy said:

Remember Perth Reds?

That is why I said it was done decades ago.

The whole Super League Wars changed the game in Australia forever.

[kev p]

12 hours ago, Mr Wind Up said:

Nothing about this post makes sense. Australia's T20 cricket league started out with two teams in Melbourne and Sydney. And even if they didn't, there is a big difference between plonking new teams in a 16-team NRL comp and the cricket which right now has just 8 teams. 

Aus t20 started with 6 teams, expanded to 8 with extra teams in places with teams already. Will rl do the same? 

[Sparse Attendance]

I don’t watch much NRL, but the highlights i have seen i often wonder what’d it be like being a season ticket holder of a club who get gates of 10,000-ish in a stadium that holds 50/60,000. The atmosphere must be dreadful, which in turn would end up putting me off buying another season ticket. 

[Man of Kent]

I’d like to see to two new clubs, one in Western Australia and one in south Queensland.

Not convinced by a second NZ club or transplanting Sydney clubs at this stage.

[Mr Wind Up]

1 hour ago, kev p said:

Aus t20 started with 6 teams, expanded to 8 with extra teams in places with teams already. Will rl do the same? 

Big Bash as we know it started out with 8 teams. The previous version with 6 teams wasnt city franchises, but long established state teams. 

[Cdd]

Seems there’s two options here:

1. Relocate 2 Sydney teams to Perth and Brisbane where they might not be well receive and might alienate current Sydney fan bases.

2. Put new unique clubs into Perth and Brisbane that are more likely to be well received but won’t be able to maintain a presence in Sydney if they were replacing Sydney teams.

I’d say let natural selection take place with 18 teams and if the Sydney clubs can’t survive then so be it.

IF the NRL wants to make it lucrative for a team to relocate then I believe it COULD work but it would have to be the right club and they would need to ensure that the fans of that club in Sydney could still stay well connected to their club.

West Tigers moving to the west coast would make sense, they could keep the name and play 2 games at Leichhardt Oval each year as well as up to 8 away games in and around Sydney. 

Perth gets the NRL franchise it deserves and the NRL can grow it’s national footprint and increase broadcasting revenue, while current fans of the Tigers still get to watch their team regularly and a special season ticket could be put in place to ensure its easy to attend the games. Away support for the tigers could become quite a pull. 

As for Brisbane they need a clear unique team rather than a relocated one. They should play out of Suncorp with potentially a few regional Queensland fixtures thrown in as well. 

As for another option, a Sydney club could also move to Central Coast while maintaining a Sydney presence like West’s moving to Perth. For example the Sea Eagles could move to Central Coast offering a wider footprint for the game while still playing a couple of fixtures at brookvale along with their away games in Sydney.

 

This way we get a new Brisbane franchise that pretty much everyone wants.

Perth gets a franchise which pretty much everyone wants.

None of the Sydney teams lose their club entirely and we don’t lose valuable brands as happened with the bears. 

 

 

 

[jim_57]

1 hour ago, Cdd said:

Seems there’s two options here:

1. Relocate 2 Sydney teams to Perth and Brisbane where they might not be well receive and might alienate current Sydney fan bases.

2. Put new unique clubs into Perth and Brisbane that are more likely to be well received but won’t be able to maintain a presence in Sydney if they were replacing Sydney teams.

I’d say let natural selection take place with 18 teams and if the Sydney clubs can’t survive then so be it.

IF the NRL wants to make it lucrative for a team to relocate then I believe it COULD work but it would have to be the right club and they would need to ensure that the fans of that club in Sydney could still stay well connected to their club.

West Tigers moving to the west coast would make sense, they could keep the name and play 2 games at Leichhardt Oval each year as well as up to 8 away games in and around Sydney. 

Perth gets the NRL franchise it deserves and the NRL can grow it’s national footprint and increase broadcasting revenue, while current fans of the Tigers still get to watch their team regularly and a special season ticket could be put in place to ensure its easy to attend the games. Away support for the tigers could become quite a pull. 

As for Brisbane they need a clear unique team rather than a relocated one. They should play out of Suncorp with potentially a few regional Queensland fixtures thrown in as well. 

As for another option, a Sydney club could also move to Central Coast while maintaining a Sydney presence like West’s moving to Perth. For example the Sea Eagles could move to Central Coast offering a wider footprint for the game while still playing a couple of fixtures at brookvale along with their away games in Sydney.

 

This way we get a new Brisbane franchise that pretty much everyone wants.

Perth gets a franchise which pretty much everyone wants.

None of the Sydney teams lose their club entirely and we don’t lose valuable brands as happened with the bears. 

 

 

 

Brisbane wouldn't embrace a failed Sydney team relocated in my opinion. Perth, Adelaide or NZ are options though as Rugby League isn't the main sport.

As for Bears, they may still be a chance if they move away from Central Coast and set up a bid somewhere like Adelaide or NZ. Even if that is just playing a couple of NSW Cup games there for a start.

... or Canada might fit their name better..

[Man of Kent]

Don’t quite get how Wests Tigers should be made to move to Perth merely because their name sounds somewhat similar to Western Australia. Seems illogical to me.

[MattSantos]

10 hours ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

I struggle to understand how there’s a perception that there are too many Sydney clubs. To me, an English person, it seems like us saying “there’s too many teams across the M62”. 

The nine clubs currently in the NRL have been about for years, why is now the time that some need disbanding (this is what it is, I’m not having that a team being moved from end of the country to the other is the same team) to make a more national league. 

Theres a finite amount of corporate dollar, split 9 ways. Thats the theory anyway 

[MattSantos]

2 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Don’t quite get how Wests Tigers should be made to move to Perth merely because their name sounds somewhat similar to Western Australia. Seems illogical to me.

Youve made that up though havent you

[Man of Kent]

51 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

Youve made that up though havent you

As proposed by fellow posters above

[MattSantos]

25 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

As proposed by fellow posters above

My bad. Cheers. 

2 new teams would be ideal for me. One in Christchurch or somewhere similar South Island and Perth. 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

17 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

There are clearly too many teams across the m62. 

Is there? Says who? 

Or is there a lack of interest in the game that also sees a lack of money in the game? 

[Damien]

20 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Is there? Says who? 

Or is there a lack of interest in the game that also sees a lack of money in the game? 

Maybe there is a lack of interest and money in the game precisely because of the concentration of clubs along the M62 and the game pandering to these clubs?

[Oliver Clothesoff]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

The evidence says. There are too many clubs in too small an area scrambling for the same supporters, sponsors and players, cannibilizing each other and spending more time fighting each other for the same resources than they do fighting to grow the game.

Ask a leigh fan why they don't have an academy and they will tell you that there are three massive clubs on their doorstep and there isn't any more talent to take out. Ask wakefield fans why they dont have any money and they will tell you they have to fight (at least) 3 other clubs for fans and sponsors. If you cant get the resources to thrive because you are fighting your rivals for them then the market is over-saturated.

I’m not having that bottom paragraph. It’s rubbish. 

 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

You can refuse to believe whatever you like. Doesn't alter the truth. 

It’s the truth is it? 

Academies are not always financially viable. How many players, when Leigh did have an Academy, come through their Academy to become a first-team regular or go on to play higher up the ladder? From memory, not many, if any at all (I’m open to Leigh fans putting me right, though). 

Now, let’s think financially. Leigh, who’ve largely been a second tier side for the past twenty years, have lived off smaller handouts from The RFL and their income from matchdays against lower league sides. 

So to train an Academy team, they’re going to need to factor in potential pitch hire, floodlight costs, equipment and at least one coach, more than likely they’d need a lot more than that, who is going to have to be remunerated. 

Now onto games, they’re going to need to have to factor in potential pitch hire, kit cost, cleaning of kit costs, equipment, referee costs, insurance, transport hire costs, doctors to be required and various staff to be there and potentially be remunerated for their services. 

That’s just a few things off the top of my head, so there’s probably some things I’ve forgotten to mention but let’s think about this from a business sense.

Given the man hours required from coaches, let’s say two hours twice a week for a couple of years, that’s 416 hours, and then factoring in the cost of training and coaches and then the cost of matchday’s where you have to factor in the cost of the things I’ve mentioned above, you’re looking at a large cost.

When you then compare the cost of running an Academy against Leigh’s (or anybody else’s) success rate of players developing through the pathway, the cost per player who makes the cut is potentially astronomical. 

I suggest, if you haven’t already or aren’t aware of their recent history, take a look at Brentford Football Club and the reasons they stopped their Academy.

In modern sport in the UK, Acadmies aren’t  always a good idea for some clubs and some sports teams are doing things a little differently now. That’s why the constant “all Super League sides need an Academy” talk you get from some corners of this forum, is not necessarily correct. 

 

[Cdd]

4 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

As proposed by fellow posters above

Im not saying it has to be West’s. I just thought they were a good example of how a club could move to Perth but still stay connected with their fan base in Sydney.

It could be done with any Sydney club in theory.

[bbfaz]

I said a long time ago that there was a very obvious solution to this problem. That there is a system that is used worldwide in any number of sports that allows clubs to find their appropriate levels, while not closing off the ability to reach the top-level. The problem is the NRL and Australia as a whole will never adopt this system because they are a pound shop version of the US. 

Forcing franchising on a community - driven sport has never really worked. Demerge the merged teams, get clubs back into their traditional homes wherever possible and open the system to any club that aspires to the top level. If you are controlled by a professional team and/or happy to be a developmental side in a developmental system, that's great.