2 Teams getting the Axe in Sydney????

[Nashy]

Too many Sydney teams. **** tradition, get rid of them.

Perth needs a team. Hell, put a team in PNG just to get another out of Sydney. I don't care, the crowds down there don't deserve that much league.

 

[Coxy]

I've been saying it for a while but the NRL needs to have "Essential" locations for teams with minimum number of licenses.

eg:

NQ: 1
SE Qld: 2
Newcastle/Hunter: 1
NZ: 1
Melbourne: 1
Greater Sydney (Gosford->Wollongong->Penrith): 4

That's minimum.

There can be others in those regions - or other regions like Perth - if a suitable application with viable business plan etc is presented. So minimum, NRL would have 10 teams.

I think 12-14 is the best number.

Licenses should be reviewed annually based on comparing the business plan to the actual results. That stops clubs who have been around for decades getting away with gross mismanagement.

Clubs who lose their NRL license should be able to enter whatever lower division competition is available - eg QLD Cup, NSW Cup etc, and are welcome to keep working on improving things for another tilt at getting a licence.

I know what people will say. "Fans will feel disillusioned if their club is under threat of being kicked out every year", but **** it, the only way for clubs to stay viable is if they're held accountable. This is the best way to do it IMO. If anything it will result in STRONGER clubs and thus more stability and assurance fans will have clubs to support for years to come.

 

[Nashy]

Be good to have a relegation system in the NRL. Have as many teams as ya bloody want in Sydney. Do shit, then bugger off till you play better.

 

[Coxy]

Nah, relegation is based on on field performance. I think on field performance is largely irrelevant to a club's solvency and capacity to improve. If the money and stability is there, then it's just a matter of attracting players and building up a squad.

I think if you had such strict reviews of a club's financial position on such a regular basis you could abolish the salary cap, or at least increase it a fair bit. Clubs that overspend will end up fucked.

Only problem is you'd need to have other license applications coming in regularly so if a club goes bust you can replace them relatively easily.

Issues there for players too, probably wouldn't sign more than a 1 year contract....

OK, so there's holes in my theory, but still! :P

 

[Major JW Hochstetter]

With regards to Sydney, it'd be sad to see anyone go (even Juan Pharkall). But rationalisation had to come one day and natural selection is probably the best way to sort it out - and that's what's happening, with assistance from the current economic state.

As for the Knights, the reason they have always been in a heap of shyte almost totally comes down to the "chocolate wheel and sausage sizzle" dinosaurs who attempt to 'run' the joint. I mean Chief is/was on the board FFS. Fail.

 

[Emma]

Nah, relegation is based on on field performance. I think on field performance is largely irrelevant to a club's solvency and capacity to improve. If the money and stability is there, then it's just a matter of attracting players and building up a squad.

I think if you had such strict reviews of a club's financial position on such a regular basis you could abolish the salary cap, or at least increase it a fair bit. Clubs that overspend will end up ****.

Only problem is you'd need to have other license applications coming in regularly so if a club goes bust you can replace them relatively easily.

Issues there for players too, probably wouldn't sign more than a 1 year contract....

OK, so there's holes in my theory, but still! :P

I like stories.

[icon_razz1

 

[Coxy]

With regards to Sydney, it'd be sad to see anyone go (even Juan Pharkall). But rationalisation had to come one day and natural selection is probably the best way to sort it out - and that's what's happening, with assistance from the current economic state.

As for the Knights, the reason they have always been in a heap of shyte almost totally comes down to the "chocolate wheel and sausage sizzle" dinosaurs who attempt to 'run' the joint. I mean Chief is/was on the board FFS. Fail.

Too true, and that came from their origin, coming out of the Newcastle League. Think back to the expansions over the last 20 years.

1988: Broncos (private), Knights (committee-based), Seagulls (committee-based).
- Broncos going strong
- Knights regularly have had to be propped up
- Seagulls dead

1995: Warriors (private), Cowboys (private), Reds (private), Crushers (committee-based - QRL)
- Warriors have struggled at times but still alive
- Cowboys struggled at times but still alive
- Reds sacrificed as a peace offering in SL war
- Crushers LOLZ

The problem with committee based clubs is they are either run by dinosaurs, or require the idiots (members) to run the asylum by way of voting for change.

How any professional sports team can have decisions based on the voting of "members" in this day and age is beyond me.

 

[m1c]

panthers and eels: merge
saints and sharks: merge
easts and souths: merge

give them the options to merge or relocate to the central coast, perth, adelaide.

too many teams in small areas. fans wont be happy, but it will solve some problems.

 

[Nashy]

Saints? I don't think it's fair on any of their fans to have to merge yet again.

 

[m1c]

I'm only going on geography. If you ask me it will never be feasible in todays business world to have 2 teams so close together making a profit.

 

[broncosil]

I would have thought Manly would relocate to the Sunshine Coast. I thought that was the main reason why they have a club in the Queensland Cup. I have heard a few rumours, but again don't know if this is completely true. And I would have thought Souths would have been the next to go?

 

[Playboy Bunny]

Souths are not going anywhere. /thread

 

[Nashy]

Souths are not going anywhere. /thread

Exactly right. They shouldn't be moved, simply removed from the comp.

 

[Fozz]

They can play in the Jim Beam cup.

 

[Foordy]

If the sharks are in that much trouble the should COMPLETELY relocate to the Central Coast and be known as the Central Coast Sharks.

when i say relocate i mean:

1. Player live and train on the central coast
2. Have all Sharks offices and facilities on the central coast
3. Play home games on the central coast
4. Have their leagues club on the central coast
5. Seek local (central coast) sponsorships

If they do that they will get crowds of 18 000 - 25 000 to all home games.

 

[Kimlo]

Why is there so much discussion? It's simple, sack souths and everyone will be happy, and the wasted money on that poor excuse of a club can be used to bail out the struggling NRL clubs.

 

[Nashy]

Why is there so much discussion? It's simple, sack souths and everyone will be happy, and the wasted money on that poor excuse of a club can be used to bail out the struggling NRL clubs.

Need to get rid of more than just Souths in Sydney though. There are too many teams, one just won't do it.

Maybe base it on crowd averages. That would probably still get rid of Souths too.

 

[gUt]

AFL supporters show us the way by turning up to the games and becoming members of their teams. How did AFL manage to inculcate the AFL religion in the minds of their fans where the league mob didn't? I know Super League was not cool but still, no one goes to Sydney games.