NRL “Expansion” delayed

[The Great Dane]

On 04/02/2021 at 23:09, Davo5 said:

I rest my case. 

Thank you for making my point.

[The Great Dane]

On 04/02/2021 at 23:59, Davo5 said:

Manly are one of the most recognisable teams in the NRL and have a sustained history of success,the new $30 million upgrade of Brookvale will see better facilities and game day experience at the ground with further development planned for the long term.

Whilst showing their age I have enjoyed watching a game at both Brookvale & Leichard far more than the cavernous ANZ with 10,000 lost in the stands.

The $30mil upgrade at Brookvale is a band-aid on a cancer. 

It won't fix any of the real problems that the stadium has, and it's nostalgia soaked regressive thinking like this that has held the game back for decades on both sides of the equator.

Keep playing in rundown stadiums that are difficult for 90% of the population to get to if you like, but don't then complain when you are going broke and watching the AFL average tens of thousands more then you could ever dream of.

[The Great Dane]

On 05/02/2021 at 00:01, unapologetic pedant said:

From what I can detect from afar, the big difference between Cronulla and Manly is in their respective junior leagues. I don`t know whether the Northern Beaches used to have much higher participation rates, but currently it looks pretty thin. Like any franchise struggling with their local Tackle numbers, Manly need to emulate the success of League Tag in the Shire. Not as a means of nurturing future players but nurturing future fans.

The NSWRL are this year renewing their League Tag efforts in the Manly junior league, and V`landys is stressing participation including Touch and Tag as vital.

Juniors aren't really a problem for either of them (well at least not in this regard), the problem for both (and many other NRL clubs) is that they refuse to adapt the environment changing around them.

They need to make meaningful changes to make themselves more appealing to a broader group of people to grow their fan base, but they refuse to make those meaningful changes because 'tradition'.

It's the biggest difference between the AFL and the NRL which has made the AFL more successful; even if they need a bit of arm twisting at times, the AFL clubs are willing and capable of making changes for the benefit of their club and the sport, where in the name of "tradition" (most) NRL clubs will fight change until they are blue in the face.

[The Great Dane]

On 06/02/2021 at 12:18, rlno1 said:

The reality is clubs can turn things around with good management, just as South Sydney have and Western Suburbs have from clubs that were down on their knees.

Only if you consider getting lucky and finding a Hollywood star with rich mates willing to bankroll the club, or lucking out and having an already established leagues club in a growth corridor, "good management".

Unless you can convince Hugh Jackman to get some mates together and blow tens of millions of dollars saving the Sea Eagles, it's pretty unlikely that they'll be so fortunate.

[The Great Dane]

On 06/02/2021 at 12:25, rlno1 said:

 

 

Sydney clubs have ALWAYS transcended their boarders that's why it became the league that grew into the national competition.

Clubs like Parra, Manly, Souths, Saints, Balmain, Canterbury and the Roosters have always had big followings outside their Sydney base.

Firstly, the NSWRL's growth to be the national competition had nothing to do with the popularity of the clubs outside of Sydney. It was because they had the biggest leagues clubs, and as such had the money to suck all the talent out of their competitors competitions and then takeover their 'territory'. Change that accident of history and make it so pokies are legal in Queensland, or some more of the clubs in the bush have the finances to compete with the Sydney clubs, and the whole history of RL in Australia is turned on it's head.

Also a following outside of their Sydney base doesn't mean anything if you can't monetise it to make the club financially sustainable, and with the possible exception of Souths, none of them have been capable of truly monetising their support outside Sydney.

It's also true that the majority of any teams supporters will live within an hour of the teams home ground, and that those fans will spend significantly more on the club on average than fans outside of it. In other words it's insane to bank on fans from the bush to sustain a club, and the clubs should be doing everything in their power to grow their support locally. 

[The Great Dane]

3 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

At least a couple of NRL chief executives seem to have an eye on how much a 17th club will cost them in the short term, shows it's not just Super League clubs that put themselves first and say sod the benefits to the game:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/club-bosses-want-expansion-team-to-pay-multimillion-dollar-fee-to-enter-nrl-20210206-p57060.html

Licensing fees are standard practice in sport. 

It's sucks that most clubs will just ###### it down the drain, but if anything it'd be weird if they didn't ask for one.

[KiwiRLfan2050]

Would love to see another NZ team down the track! 

[Davo5]

3 hours ago, KiwiRLfan2050 said:

Would love to see another NZ team down the track! 

With Brisbane 2 looking locked in as the 17th club you’d hope that Perth,NZ 2 and maybe Adelaide join the existing clubs over the next decade to make up a 20 team league.

[Tommygilf]

4 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

Firstly, the NSWRL's growth to be the national competition had nothing to do with the popularity of the clubs outside of Sydney. It was because they had the biggest leagues clubs, and as such had the money to suck all the talent out of their competitors competitions and then takeover their 'territory'. Change that accident of history and make it so pokies are legal in Queensland, or some more of the clubs in the bush have the finances to compete with the Sydney clubs, and the whole history of RL in Australia is turned on it's head.

Also a following outside of their Sydney base doesn't mean anything if you can't monetise it to make the club financially sustainable, and with the possible exception of Souths, none of them have been capable of truly monetising their support outside Sydney.

It's also true that the majority of any teams supporters will live within an hour of the teams home ground, and that those fans will spend significantly more on the club on average than fans outside of it. In other words it's insane to bank on fans from the bush to sustain a club, and the clubs should be doing everything in their power to grow their support locally. 

You do realise arguing a hypothesis that didn't happen doesn't prove transpired reality wrong? Ifs, buts, and a few maybes and we're suddenly back in the stone age. The Sydney clubs, because of their wealth and the influence of Sydney generally in Australia, have grown supporter numbers outside of Sydney.

Of course clubs monetise their fanbase outside of the local market, that's evident purely from the TV deal - arguably the most important monetisation of all.

Could they do it more? of course, because the answer to that is always yes - stating the obvious really to argue that one.

[Dave T]

5 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

Licensing fees are standard practice in sport. 

It's sucks that most clubs will just ###### it down the drain, but if anything it'd be weird if they didn't ask for one.

For some reason people seem uncomfortable asking for franchise fees. I don't think having a buy-in cost is unreasonable in the slightest. And I'm not talking your setup costs, they are yours. 

I do think franchise fees should be managed centrally though and invested in the game and its development rather than a dividend to existing clubs. 

[Damien]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

For some reason people seem uncomfortable asking for franchise fees. I don't think having a buy-in cost is unreasonable in the slightest. And I'm not talking your setup costs, they are yours. 

I do think franchise fees should be managed centrally though and invested in the game and its development rather than a dividend to existing clubs. 

I don't think people are uncomfortable with the idea per se. Plenty seem to think they are a good idea and they should be used as you say. People seem more uncomfortable with what is got for that franchise fee. In Australia this should be straight forward, you are buying a franchise spot in the NRL. In the UK with p&r is where the usual arguments start about what such a fee should get you.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

I don't think people are uncomfortable with the idea per se. Plenty seem to think they are a good idea and they should be used as you say. People seem more uncomfortable with what is got for that franchise fee. In Australia this should be straight forward, you are buying a franchise spot in the NRL. In the UK with p&r is where the usual arguments start about what such a fee should get you.

Yes the fee would have to reflect what you get, whether that is a permanent place in SL or x years of protection. Or even just a fee which gets you into the RFL 3 division pyramid. 

[dkw]

12 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

I do think franchise fees should be managed centrally though and invested in the game and its development rather than a dividend to existing clubs. 

Completely agree with this, any fee should go into a development pot that the paying club also has access to. Things like academy/youth team development costs etc.the last thing it should do is go to clubs to spend as they want as a large percentage would just go to wages and agent fees.

[Cumbrian Mackem]

7 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

The $30mil upgrade at Brookvale is a band-aid on a cancer. 

It won't fix any of the real problems that the stadium has, and it's nostalgia soaked regressive thinking like this that has held the game back for decades on both sides of the equator.

Keep playing in rundown stadiums that are difficult for 90% of the population to get to if you like, but don't then complain when you are going broke and watching the AFL average tens of thousands more then you could ever dream of.

What could for example $30 million do to a upgrade at the north Sydney oval and could more money be found by the NSW government for even more upgrades at the north Sydney oval?

[Cumbrian Mackem]

1 hour ago, Davo5 said:

With Brisbane 2 looking locked in as the 17th club you’d hope that Perth,NZ 2 and maybe Adelaide join the existing clubs over the next decade to make up a 20 team league.

If by 2030 we have 18 NRL clubs then we can think ourselves lucky. 

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes the fee would have to reflect what you get, whether that is a permanent place in SL or x years of protection. Or even just a fee which gets you into the RFL 3 division pyramid. 

To be honest I see that as completely separate things. We should be looking to increase the pyramid base and should be looking to encourage new teams. Any fee to enter that pyramid, in League 1 that is essentially only a small step from amateur, should be minimal and should be more as a protection for other teams in the event of teams folding.

Franchise fees for a SL place are different and require a different mindset than exists at the moment. If a team has the funding to pay £5 million, for example, for a SL place then that is a major statement of intent. For me it only works with a franchise system but that's a whole different debate. Exemptions from promotion and the like are just fudges that would be typical RL were it tries to get the best of both worlds and the benefits of none.

[Dave T]

47 minutes ago, Damien said:

To be honest I see that as completely separate things. We should be looking to increase the pyramid base and should be looking to encourage new teams. Any fee to enter that pyramid, in League 1 that is essentially only a small step from amateur, should be minimal and should be more as a protection for other teams in the event of teams folding.

Franchise fees for a SL place are different and require a different mindset than exists at the moment. If a team has the funding to pay £5 million, for example, for a SL place then that is a major statement of intent. For me it only works with a franchise system but that's a whole different debate. Exemptions from promotion and the like are just fudges that would be typical RL were it tries to get the best of both worlds and the benefits of none.

Yeah, I'd be looking at SL places for sale for expansion teams, but my point really is around a principle and process whichever way it goes - the last 25 years has seen many different approaches taken with only 1 a resounding success. 

[The Rocket]

58 minutes ago, Cumbrian Mackem said:

What could for example $30 million do to a upgrade at the north Sydney oval and could more money be found by the NSW government for even more upgrades at the north Sydney oval?

I`ve seen you mention this a few times now Cumbrian, there are so many obstacles in the way of North Sydney Oval ever being up-graded to NRL standards that it will never happen.

As far as public transport goes it`s great but it`s also only 10 minutes by car from the SFS.

Also when the SCG got all its new stadiums they moved all the old heritage listed ones over to NS, whollus bollus and reconstructed them, including the famous scoreboard, around the perimeter of the oval field. Two obstacles in one. 

 That ground is also rimmed by the famous North Sydney Oval fig trees, which are very unlikely to be ever removed. And there is really no where to expand the ground if they wanted to.

Another obstacle is that the whole demographic of North Sydney now is wrong for any 20 000 seat stadium, it`s a very expensive, upper socio-economic area and all the suburbs around it are the same, the so-called lower North Shore.

I imagine that North Sydney oval has become somewhat of a problem child for the local council and State government. You hear of it being used occasionally for cricket but I imagine the up keep for all those wooden Grand Stands would be astronomical. I bet my bottom dollar they would love to sell it off to a developer but there would be too much of a stink just because people love knowing it`s there. And BTW it is a beautiful ground, when I first moved to Sydney and didn`t know any one I would often catch the bus to NS Oval on a Sunday and watch the Bears.

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yeah, I'd be looking at SL places for sale for expansion teams, but my point really is around a principle and process whichever way it goes - the last 25 years has seen many different approaches taken with only 1 a resounding success. 

I mean I think it depends what you're looking for in terms of measuring success and is why having different entry points helps. For example in Oceania, Melbourne is the prime example for NRL expansion, but the PNG hunters are an excellent example too just at a lower level, neither should diminish the other. In our competition the obvious examples are Catalans and arguably Newcastle respectively?

Our problem seems to be that when we don't have the divide between what is effectively oil and water we end up putting in a one size fits all mentality of "stick them in the lowest level" that is ultimately self-defeating from a professional point of view. You end up judging Coventry Bears as to whether they can be Toronto Wolfpack and vice versa, which is not very good for either.

I think the reason we don't have an arrangement is because it will expose aspects of the (heartland based) game that make some people uncomfortable - namely that some clubs being in the same system as full time professionalism isn't sustainable or that accepting they are at the same status as a West Wales or Coventry is just too bitter a pill to swallow.

[unapologetic pedant]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Of course clubs monetise their fanbase outside of the local market, that's evident purely from the TV deal - arguably the most important monetisation of all.

This is a very good point.

The Fox League ratings indicate modest crossover between games. Few people watch 8 games a week. Some might watch 2 or 3. Many will only watch 1, i.e. the one involving the club they have a personal attachment to. These viewers are all across Australia.

It shows up most tellingly in the Warriors` games, where their ratings don`t include all their supporters watching on Sky in NZ.

[Cumbrian Mackem]

1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

I`ve seen you mention this a few times now Cumbrian, there are so many obstacles in the way of North Sydney Oval ever being up-graded to NRL standards that it will never happen.

As far as public transport goes it`s great but it`s also only 10 minutes by car from the SFS.

Also when the SCG got all its new stadiums they moved all the old heritage listed ones over to NS, whollus bollus and reconstructed them, including the famous scoreboard, around the perimeter of the oval field. Two obstacles in one. 

 That ground is also rimmed by the famous North Sydney Oval fig trees, which are very unlikely to be ever removed. And there is really no where to expand the ground if they wanted to.

Another obstacle is that the whole demographic of North Sydney now is wrong for any 20 000 seat stadium, it`s a very expensive, upper socio-economic area and all the suburbs around it are the same, the so-called lower North Shore.

I imagine that North Sydney oval has become somewhat of a problem child for the local council and State government. You hear of it being used occasionally for cricket but I imagine the up keep for all those wooden Grand Stands would be astronomical. I bet my bottom dollar they would love to sell it off to a developer but there would be too much of a stink just because people love knowing it`s there. And BTW it is a beautiful ground, when I first moved to Sydney and didn`t know any one I would often catch the bus to NS Oval on a Sunday and watch the Bears.

Very informative reply rocket. Who funds manly? A rich backer or a strong leagues club setup?

Is there any chance of the sea Eagles moving up the coast to gosford?

[unapologetic pedant]

9 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

Juniors aren't really a problem for either of them (well at least not in this regard), the problem for both (and many other NRL clubs) is that they refuse to adapt the environment changing around them.

They need to make meaningful changes to make themselves more appealing to a broader group of people to grow their fan base, but they refuse to make those meaningful changes because 'tradition'.

Phrases like "adapt to the environment", and "make meaningful changes" are lacking in specifics.

It`s surprising you don`t see an apparently threadbare junior league as a problem for Manly. Peter V`landys would disagree. As would the AFL. They both see participation as crucial to maintaining or growing a fanbase.

The success of League Tag in the Shire is an example of how clubs in the Cronulla Junior League have broken with "tradition" by delivering RL as a contact/non-contact game. The same has yet to happen in the Northern Beaches.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

I mean I think it depends what you're looking for in terms of measuring success and is why having different entry points helps. For example in Oceania, Melbourne is the prime example for NRL expansion, but the PNG hunters are an excellent example too just at a lower level, neither should diminish the other. In our competition the obvious examples are Catalans and arguably Newcastle respectively?

Our problem seems to be that when we don't have the divide between what is effectively oil and water we end up putting in a one size fits all mentality of "stick them in the lowest level" that is ultimately self-defeating from a professional point of view. You end up judging Coventry Bears as to whether they can be Toronto Wolfpack and vice versa, which is not very good for either.

I think the reason we don't have an arrangement is because it will expose aspects of the (heartland based) game that make some people uncomfortable - namely that some clubs being in the same system as full time professionalism isn't sustainable or that accepting they are at the same status as a West Wales or Coventry is just too bitter a pill to swallow.

We can create a principle with different entry levels if we deem that is necessary. Not all clubs have the same aims and ambitions. And we have done this - PSG, Gateshead and Catalans took different routes to TWP and Toulouse for example. I think its reasonable for an application at whichever level is appropriate. 

In reality, it always comes back to ring fencing for expansion efforts and whether the competition is prepared to go for that. 

[Tommygilf]

37 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We can create a principle with different entry levels if we deem that is necessary. Not all clubs have the same aims and ambitions. And we have done this - PSG, Gateshead and Catalans took different routes to TWP and Toulouse for example. I think its reasonable for an application at whichever level is appropriate. 

In reality, it always comes back to ring fencing for expansion efforts and whether the competition is prepared to go for that. 

I think expansion might be part of it, but its not the only part and in any case most of the reasons for an expansion club to be in favour of say a protected status in Super League apply just as much to a promoted heartland team.

I think its part of a bigger issue of lacking direction that comes out in several areas. Is expansion valuable simultaneously at all levels or only at the top/bottom level? By extension should expansion only be supported with the intention of being fully professional? Is promotion and the immediate risk of relegation viable in a league with only 12 teams? What is the point of League 1 and even the Championship (or at least half of it)?

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Cumbrian Mackem said:

Very informative reply rocket. Who funds manly? A rich backer or a strong leagues club setup?

Is there any chance of the sea Eagles moving up the coast to gosford?

Would not be surprised if they split their games between there and Brookvale more evenly in future