Brisbane bombers

[Number6]

I touched on it a bit in my earlier post but it would mean a perfect home and away schedule (22 GP) rather than the current farcical method. It would also allow SOO to be stand alone which is a huge issue in the game atm. And just imagine the calibre of a 12 team comp, there would be no Nikorimas, Takarangis or Linnetts running around and the standard of play would be unrivaled and would probably gain in popularity because of it. It would also allow the NRL to increase the salary cup (if TV rights remained strong) thus paying our stars more and preventing defections. The networks could compensate the loss of televising top grade matches by adding some extra ISC games to their schedule (whose calibre would also increase).

But of course, in order for this to happen, the culling or merging of Sydney sides would have to occur and as we know, RL fans are very tribal and many would walk away from the game. RL cannot afford to lose Sydney fans as they are still the life blood of the sport. NSW control the game and that will never change as the fan base here greatly out numbers any other location.

This is all pie in the sky stuff, I realize, but less is better when it comes to RL in Australia as it is so badly saturated with 16 teams already, yet others talk of expanding to 18 or 20 teams which is just ludicrous IMO. Any rebuttals?

So?

1. Broncos
2. Cowboys
3. Knights
4. Canberra
5. Storm
6. Perth
7. NZ
8. Manly
9. Sydney Rabbitohs (merge easts/Souths)
10. Western Sydney Bulldogs
11. Penrith
12. Southern Dragons (Cronulla/St George drop Illawarra).

Sydney teams playing local grounds save Billions on wasted stadiums

Good argument for increasing quality. NFL only has 32 teams for 10x population and no real competitor sports.

6 games. Thurs, Friday and 2x sat and Sunday.

Big issue is TV rights can’t go up forever so NRL has to future proof.

Would suggest 14 makes more sense. Extra Friday game.

Keep. Cronulla and Dragons in current form but move dragons more to Illawarra region as it grows.

If Titans continue to fail (more likely) aim Western Brisbane team.

 

[Accept]

So?

1. Broncos
2. Cowboys
3. Knights
4. Canberra
5. Storm
6. Perth
7. NZ
8. Manly
9. Sydney Rabbitohs (merge easts/Souths)
10. Western Sydney Bulldogs
11. Penrith
12. Southern Dragons (Cronulla/St George drop Illawarra).

Sydney teams playing local grounds save Billions on wasted stadiums

Good argument for increasing quality. NFL only has 32 teams for 10x population and no real competitor sports.

6 games. Thurs, Friday and 2x sat and Sunday.

Big issue is TV rights can’t go up forever so NRL has to future proof.

Would suggest 14 makes more sense. Extra Friday game.

Keep. Cronulla and Dragons in current form but move dragons more to Illawarra region as it grows.

If Titans continue to fail (more likely) aim Western Brisbane team.

Need a second Bris team in there somewhere, I don't know who I would chop. I could live with 14 teams but 12 would work better schedule wise. It will be interesting to see what happens the next 10-20 years.

 

[Renegade]

I touched on it a bit in my earlier post but it would mean a perfect home and away schedule (22 GP) rather than the current farcical method. It would also allow SOO to be stand alone which is a huge issue in the game atm. And just imagine the calibre of a 12 team comp, there would be no Nikorimas, Takarangis or Linnetts running around and the standard of play would be unrivaled and would probably gain in popularity because of it. It would also allow the NRL to increase the salary cup (if TV rights remained strong) thus paying our stars more and preventing defections. The networks could compensate the loss of televising top grade matches by adding some extra ISC games to their schedule (whose calibre would also increase).

But of course, in order for this to happen, the culling or merging of Sydney sides would have to occur and as we know, RL fans are very tribal and many would walk away from the game. RL cannot afford to lose Sydney fans as they are still the life blood of the sport. NSW control the game and that will never change as the fan base here greatly out numbers any other location.

This is all pie in the sky stuff, I realize, but less is better when it comes to RL in Australia as it is so badly saturated with 16 teams already, yet others talk of expanding to 18 or 20 teams which is just ludicrous IMO. Any rebuttals?

Yeah, you smell.

Nah appreciate the response. I have a couple of points I'll address.

Firstly and probably the most important - money. How would RL as a sport maintain it's TV rights deal(s), which is largely the main thing that keeps the game afloat, with less teams and as a result, less games? If you take the approach of a 12 team comp, that means you only have 6 games a week. Compare this to other major sporting leagues around the world, and this is quite low, thus, exposure is lower. We have already seen in the past in previous TV rights negotiations that in order for bidders to pay more money for the rights, they need to get their cut in the way of advertising and so forth. How do you negate the loss of exposure and air time and therefore money, in order to keep the game afloat? Less teams mean less money, it's that simple. You can argue that the game wouldn't need as much from TV rights in order to keep it afloat, but in that same essence all you're doing is giving your main competitors the AFL, more opportunity to suck up the extra dollars on offer and thus, more money to continue to aggressively expand and promote their product. I don't need to explain how this isn't a good thing and would actively hurt RL as a sport and as a product. There's also the argument that expansion is good for the game because not only does it open new markets, it allows the game to actively promote itself as a national game, because it has teams in most if not all corners of the country, not just the east coast as we do currently - the AFL, like them or loathe them, can actively do this and can back their words up by virtue of their spread of teams.

Secondly, less teams = less players. So there's a couple of issues at play on this one - firstly, less players means the likelihood of talented players slipping through the cracks is greater and the likelihood of them going to a rival code is higher - if you were a talented teen and there weren't alternatives in your current code of choice, your options are:

1) Continue playing in the hope one of the 12 teams somehow grabs you
2) Explore alternative codes, like AFL, RU

If young players are squeezed out of the game, junior participation levels will drop - it is a natural correlation, less opportunity = less desire to continue playing. Yes, there are shitloads of players that play for the love of the game from kid to teen to 30yo battle hardened man, but there are also players that play because they are naturally talented athletes who will excel in most codes given the opportunity to develop. Do you want to see a young Inglis playing AFL instead of RL, because that's what will happen if you drop the teams to 12, talented athletes will go elsewhere to fulfill their potential.

You're probably thinking, someone like a young Inglis would make any of 12 mooted sides. How though? If we assume all the talent in the game will be pidgeoned into 12 teams, then we assume those sides will be mostly stacked already. How would a young player usurp a star player if not given the opportunity? An example could be, Inglis broke through in 2004-2005, let's assume he broke through at Brisbane for arguments sake. Who's spot would he take? Hunt? Tate? Hodges? You could say, well what about Leon Bott, but if we're talking about 12 teams, Leon Bott doesn't exist, and thus, how does Inglis get a start? Do any of the aforementioned players deserve to be squeezed out of the game because they're bad players? Not imo, they were all great players and proved their worth over time, but when you have less spots and more competition, someone has to go in order to make room. Does Inglis wait 3 years to hope someone retires? Does he take his talents elsewhere?

This relates to the other issue I was thinking of re: less teams = less players. Turnover rate of players. There is already the argument at play in the NRL that teams lack experienced leaders because they are often cast aside for the next generation before their time is arguably up, it's a simple case of economics - who has the higher upside, the old guy who brings invaluable experience and leadership but only has 12-24 months left in the game, or the young guy who can run like the wind but has no professionalism because he's been awesome since day dot? That's cap and man management sure, but if it's already happening now with 16 teams, it would only get worse with 12 teams.

There is more than enough talent to support 18 teams. It also gives more youngsters opportunities that they may not have been presented previously because teams couldn't find a spot for them. Cody Walker could've been playing at 21 instead of debuting at 26. There's definitely the argument that he hit the ground running at 26 because he had to spend time in Q Cup, but the NRL is state league on steroids.

Also a minor point, but reducing the number of teams makes no impact on housing prices, the price of beer or food at a game, any other reason cited for people not attending games. Conversely, reducing the number of teams does reduces the number of fans, by virtue of them no longer having anyone to support.

There was something else I was going to post but I forgot. Over to you (or not, this doesn't have to be a back and forth essay v essay discussion).

 

[Battler]

Yes it will solve it IF it is handled correctly. The NRL doesn't know how to handle ANYTHING correctly though unfortunately.

Get out of the massive stadiums for teams who shouldn't be there. Let the Tigers play out of Leichhardt. Punt the Roosters, they offer NOTHING to the competition other than stealing every other club's juniors and stockpiling international squads without a salary cap.

You don't need so many Sydney teams BUT you don't even need to cut that much out of Sydney. Simply do four things:

1. Cut back the costs of tickets and food, etc at the ground and provide an 'experience' every weekend - have local entertainment, competitions, games, etc - get people seeing why going is better than watching on TV
2. The teams that still have no supporters get the punt - give them one season to comply
3. Even if it results in less money - punt channel 9 from hosting rights - get rid of all these agenda driven blockheads and replace them with actual professionals
4. Get Newscorp to actually promote the product that they are already heavily involved with by getting rid of all their gossip columnists, ALL of them and replacing them with professionals, young graduates if they must but ones who can leave their idiocy at the door, also put your ex-player 'experts' on the outer rims to provide just SOME comment, not regular central roles

Then, add Perth as your biggest priority. It is set-up and ready to go now, just needs a 'golden ticket' as mentioned earlier.

Then, add a second SEQ team but DON'T call it Brisbane 2, call it Ipswich / Logan / whatever, give it its own identity.

Go with 18 teams if you need to for a season or two and then cut the two most useless Sydeny teams - Roosters + 1. If the Sydney teams respond, punt the Titans, the Gold Coast is just a vortex for any sporting competition. You are back at a 16 team comp.

Keep:

1. Broncos
2. Knights
3. Storm
4. Cowboys
5. Warriors
6. Raiders
7. Penrith
8. St George
9. Manly
10. Cronulla
11. Canterbury

This way you have regional representation without cutting the heart out of Sydney (for whatever reason we need to this for apparently anyway)

Add:

12. Perth
13. SEQ

Preferably also add:

14. Adelaide - this is not a priority right now but the Titans could eventually be shifted there if they sink and re-named or re-located - think about this within five years

15. Central Sydney 1 - South Sydney - strong supporter base
16. Sydney 2 - Balmain / Parramatta / Roosters (whichever swims, the other two - goodbye)

BOOM you actually have an affordable NATIONAL competition.

Need the Eels IMO. Roosters will never be cut either, not until Politis goes away and the club's success goes the way of their crowds. Souths will never be banished, nor should they (as much as I dislike them).

 

[Sproj]

Need the Eels IMO. Roosters will never be cut either, not until Politis goes away and the club's success goes the way of their crowds. Souths will never be banished, nor should they (as much as I dislike them).

You are right of course and that is why this game will never expand until these old boys are all banished from managerial positions.

Souths absolutely must stay, they are easily the best supported Sydney club.

Incidentally, why do you think the Eels need to stay?

 

[Renegade]

You are right of course and that is why this game will never expand until these old boys are all banished from managerial positions.

Souths absolutely must stay, they are easily the best supported Sydney club.

Incidentally, why do you think the Eels need to stay?

Western Sydney needs two teams. It prob has over 1 mill people alone.

 

[Sproj]

Western Sydney needs two teams. It prob has over 1 mill people alone.

Is this in reference to the Eels? Would that be considered a western Sydney team?

I mean, you’ve got the Bulldogs and St George already there really.

 

[Renegade]

Is this in reference to the Eels? Would that be considered a western Sydney team?

I mean, you’ve got the Bulldogs and St George already there really.

yup, they even bill it as the battle of western sydney when the two teams clash.

geographically it's penrith but i think parra is on the cusp.

not sure exactly on the traditional locality of st george and bulldogs. traditionally speaking the dogs and eels get pretty good crowds and have a good rivalry also but not sure if that's based on an 80's thing mostly or partially on geography as well.

 

[BroncsFan]

Eels also have a new stadium coming.

 

[Sproj]

Eels also have a new stadium coming.

So it all comes back once again to...what do the Roosters offer...nothing.

 

[BroncsFan]

So it all comes back once again to...what do the Roosters offer...nothing.

Roosters literally offer nothing... no fans/ crowds, no corporate support (other than politis and brown paper bags), no juniors, pretty sure every other team's fans hate them as well, literally in the most crowded area of Sydney.

 

[Renegade]

Roosters literally offer nothing... no fans/ crowds, no corporate support (other than politis and brown paper bags), no juniors, pretty sure every other team's fans hate them as well, literally in the most crowded area of Sydney.

They're a foundation club though, and they're backed by a powerful and influential dude.

They could run dead last for 20 years and they'd still be relevant.

The problem isn't the teams, it's how you make them more accessible to the every day person. Culling or moving teams will not work unless clubs willingly stick their hand up for relocation.

Club grounds are definitely better for your run of the mil fixtures, big stadiums should only be used for big events or finals. A 20k packed house is better than the same amount in a 1/3 full stadium. How do you get the money to redevelop all the club grounds though? It's not only the cost of the stadium, it's the transport infrastructure that goes with it.

And more importantly, how does that translate to savings for the average joe? I mean for example, at Dolphin oval you can get 2 beers, a can of coke, some hot chips and some other oil food and get change from 10 bucks - but Redcliffe's expenses aren't anywhere near an NRL sides so they can afford to sell them that cheap, I don't think an NRL club could do the same (besides the fact most of the guys are volunteers and don't get paid, whereas at a NRL game, wages etc come into play or you hire caterers)

 

[roo-ted]

I think it should be Darwin bombers
That's if we can recruit Japanese players to play for them

 

[Morkel]

They're a foundation club though, and they're backed by a powerful and influential dude.

They could run dead last for 20 years and they'd still be relevant.

It's that mentality that is holding the game back. Cumberland, Glebe, Newtown, they're foundation clubs. Did the game die because they are no longer part of first grade?

Would any of them be allowed back in if they promised nothing in the way of community engagement & junior player development, but had a rich dude owning it whose only interest in the game is to manipulate the powerbrokers for his own purposes?

I agree with everything else you said though.

 

[Renegade]

It's that mentality that is holding the game back. Cumberland, Glebe, Newtown, they're foundation clubs. Did the game die because they are no longer part of first grade?

Would any of them be allowed back in if they promised nothing in the way of community engagement & junior player development, but had a rich dude owning it whose only interest in the game is to manipulate the powerbrokers for his own purposes?

Probably not, but it's not a fair comparison comparing non-professional v professional eras.

 

[Nashy]

Probably not, but it's not a fair comparison comparing non-professional v professional eras.

And Australia where a court case was settled over too many beers, and punch up, and more beers. Way too much money involved now days for it to be considered the same.

 

[Number6]

Yeah, you smell.

Nah appreciate the response. I have a couple of points I'll address.

Firstly and probably the most important - money. How would RL as a sport maintain it's TV rights deal(s), which is largely the main thing that keeps the game afloat, with less teams and as a result, less games? If you take the approach of a 12 team comp, that means you only have 6 games a week. Compare this to other major sporting leagues around the world, and this is quite low, thus, exposure is lower. We have already seen in the past in previous TV rights negotiations that in order for bidders to pay more money for the rights, they need to get their cut in the way of advertising and so forth. How do you negate the loss of exposure and air time and therefore money, in order to keep the game afloat? Less teams mean less money, it's that simple. You can argue that the game wouldn't need as much from TV rights in order to keep it afloat, but in that same essence all you're doing is giving your main competitors the AFL, more opportunity to suck up the extra dollars on offer and thus, more money to continue to aggressively expand and promote their product. I don't need to explain how this isn't a good thing and would actively hurt RL as a sport and as a product. There's also the argument that expansion is good for the game because not only does it open new markets, it allows the game to actively promote itself as a national game, because it has teams in most if not all corners of the country, not just the east coast as we do currently - the AFL, like them or loathe them, can actively do this and can back their words up by virtue of their spread of teams.

Secondly, less teams = less players. So there's a couple of issues at play on this one - firstly, less players means the likelihood of talented players slipping through the cracks is greater and the likelihood of them going to a rival code is higher - if you were a talented teen and there weren't alternatives in your current code of choice, your options are:

1) Continue playing in the hope one of the 12 teams somehow grabs you
2) Explore alternative codes, like AFL, RU

If young players are squeezed out of the game, junior participation levels will drop - it is a natural correlation, less opportunity = less desire to continue playing. Yes, there are shitloads of players that play for the love of the game from kid to teen to 30yo battle hardened man, but there are also players that play because they are naturally talented athletes who will excel in most codes given the opportunity to develop. Do you want to see a young Inglis playing AFL instead of RL, because that's what will happen if you drop the teams to 12, talented athletes will go elsewhere to fulfill their potential.

You're probably thinking, someone like a young Inglis would make any of 12 mooted sides. How though? If we assume all the talent in the game will be pidgeoned into 12 teams, then we assume those sides will be mostly stacked already. How would a young player usurp a star player if not given the opportunity? An example could be, Inglis broke through in 2004-2005, let's assume he broke through at Brisbane for arguments sake. Who's spot would he take? Hunt? Tate? Hodges? You could say, well what about Leon Bott, but if we're talking about 12 teams, Leon Bott doesn't exist, and thus, how does Inglis get a start? Do any of the aforementioned players deserve to be squeezed out of the game because they're bad players? Not imo, they were all great players and proved their worth over time, but when you have less spots and more competition, someone has to go in order to make room. Does Inglis wait 3 years to hope someone retires? Does he take his talents elsewhere?

This relates to the other issue I was thinking of re: less teams = less players. Turnover rate of players. There is already the argument at play in the NRL that teams lack experienced leaders because they are often cast aside for the next generation before their time is arguably up, it's a simple case of economics - who has the higher upside, the old guy who brings invaluable experience and leadership but only has 12-24 months left in the game, or the young guy who can run like the wind but has no professionalism because he's been awesome since day dot? That's cap and man management sure, but if it's already happening now with 16 teams, it would only get worse with 12 teams.

There is more than enough talent to support 18 teams. It also gives more youngsters opportunities that they may not have been presented previously because teams couldn't find a spot for them. Cody Walker could've been playing at 21 instead of debuting at 26. There's definitely the argument that he hit the ground running at 26 because he had to spend time in Q Cup, but the NRL is state league on steroids.

Also a minor point, but reducing the number of teams makes no impact on housing prices, the price of beer or food at a game, any other reason cited for people not attending games. Conversely, reducing the number of teams does reduces the number of fans, by virtue of them no longer having anyone to support.

There was something else I was going to post but I forgot. Over to you (or not, this doesn't have to be a back and forth essay v essay discussion).

Issue is more games doesn’t necessarily mean that much more value and especially relative to cost. Thurs, Fri 1-2 games, Sat 2 games and sun 2 games.

How many people are watching beyond that? Those with most money (and thus most advertiser attractive or fox sports) usually work too much to catch more than a couple or so games a week. Most fans only watch their own club. Die hard fans with time and money to watch 9 games a week probably aren’t a huge market and even then some will fatigue especially for 26 rounds + finals and rep season.

Can be case for less but higher quality games being more exciting and drawing higher ratings especially for prime tv audience demographics.

Issue is how many will be lost and how permanently if cut a bunch of Sydney teams. Will it be a short term pain and most will come back or will it be a loss of a generation to AFL and other sports.

As for players - reinstate a national reserve grade (but with focus on linked teams to NRL side from regional areas that love league but don’t qualify for NRL) would be nice but more realistically and perhaps cost effective is to strengthen the local state comps. More tv slots for local comps for the die hard fans.

 

[Renegade]

Issue is more games doesn’t necessarily mean that much more value and especially relative to cost. Thurs, Fri 1-2 games, Sat 2 games and sun 2 games.

How many people are watching beyond that? Those with most money (and thus most advertiser attractive or fox sports) usually work too much to catch more than a couple or so games a week. Most fans only watch their own club. Die hard fans with time and money to watch 9 games a week probably aren’t a huge market and even then some will fatigue especially for 26 rounds + finals and rep season.

It does for advertisers - that's the point. Every club has their fans that only watch their team, but if you take that way, you're cutting off the eyeballs that make the tv rights valuable.