Player Movements / Rumours 2011/2012

[QUEENSLANDER]

Bred Not Bought!

Stole this from supercoach forum but very relevant

[h=6]Krisnan Inu - Warriors
James Gavet - Warriors
Dene Halatau - Tigers
Mitch Brown - Tigers
Corey Payne - Tigers
Steve Turner -- Storm
Aidan Tolman - Storm
James Graham - St Helens
Trent Hodkinson - Sea Eagles
Sam Perrett - Roosters
Frank Pritchard - Panthers
Joel Romelo - Panthers
Sam Kasiano - Norths Devils
Johnathon Wright - Eels
Kris Keating - Eels
Michael Lett Dragons
Bryson Goodwin - Dragons
Luke McDougall - Dragons
Josh Morris - Dragons
Greg Eastwood - Broncos
Michael Ennis - Broncos
David Stagg - Broncos
Timotei Lafai Rabbitohs
Tim Browne - Sea Eagles
Josh Jackson - Knights

That leaves just Ben Barba (the Queenslander), Josh Reynolds, Dale Finucane, Jake Foster and Martin Taupau as 'local juniors'.[/h]

 

[Bucking Beads]

I'll give them Kasiano though because they at least picked him up from QLD cup and not a rival NRL team.

 

[The Brizz]

The Sydney teams are all as bad as eachother, they steal each others good young guys constantly.

 

[Big Pete]

Too many dead weight teams in Sydney.

 

[Coxy]

teams that just exist. They have a core of fans but do little to attract new ones. they don't produce talent. They don't produce revenue for the game. They're just....there.

Looking at you, Roosters, Sharks.

 

[dukey]

teams that just exist. They have a core of fans but do little to attract new ones. they don't produce talent. They don't produce revenue for the game. They're just....there.

Looking at you, Roosters, Sharks.

By that loose definition you could also include the Storm and Titans as dead weight.

 

[Coxy]

Sydney is only capable of supporting 4 teams, realistically. I'll let them keep 6.

 

[Ari Gold]

By that loose definition you could also include the Storm and Titans as dead weight.

As I agree the Sharks and Roosters are dead weight I'm going to jump in on this one. I think the Titans are dead weight too. But not the Storm. Cronulla and "Sydney" are not important markets. They aren't big markets, and there are lots of other teams in close proximity.

Long term, will the existence of the Sharks and Roosters help lay a foundation for league to grow significantly in those areas? IMO, no. Does the existence of the Storm help grow the presence in a key market? Absolutely. Granted I don't think it's very fast and spectacular progress, but having a presence and growing the game in a region like Melbourne has benefits. So even though they don't pull big crowds, their existence is still purposeful. Is the existence of the Sharks and the Roosters going to provide the same sort of potential benefits? Not at all.

 

[Coxy]

As I agree the Sharks and Roosters are dead weight I'm going to jump in on this one. I think the Titans are dead weight too. But not the Storm. Cronulla and "Sydney" are not important markets. They aren't big markets, and there are lots of other teams in close proximity.

Long term, will the existence of the Sharks and Roosters help lay a foundation for league to grow significantly in those areas? IMO, no. Does the existence of the Storm help grow the presence in a key market? Absolutely. Granted I don't think it's very fast and spectacular progress, but having a presence and growing the game in a region like Melbourne has benefits. So even though they don't pull big crowds, their existence is still purposeful. Is the existence of the Sharks and the Roosters going to provide the same sort of potential benefits? Not at all.

^^^ This.

And for that reason I agree Gold Coast is dead weight and a waste of time. SFA to be gained by persevering with a team there.

 

[Big Pete]

What do you actually mean by that? Dead weight? How can a team be "dead weight".

Don't produce enough talent or have the resources to do so.

They don't offer much value to the code or it's growth.

Coxy is being generous. I'd throw Manly & Souths into the mix as well. On field success aside, what's there to like about Manly? Constantly under financial pressure, don't attract big crowds, don't produce too many locals & are famous for buying players.

Souths are the pick of the bunch with their superior member numbers & (temporary) financial security but I don't believe there's enough room for two eastern Sydney sides. Just enough talent or fans to cater two sides.

Titans & Storm at least provide some growth for the game & have the room to produce local talent. The NRL just needs to look after the VRL better & the Titans need better management, particularly in looking after their juniors. All the best talent is still going to Sydney or the Broncos.

Rock - Melbourne are beginning to produce a couple of really talented local juniors. They had their first Australian schoolboys rep. last year & have since had a number of players in the NSW U20s & U18s side. They finally have a stadium made for watching Rugby League (as opposed to the worst stadium in the game in Olympic Park) & the crowds have risen steadily despite being involved in one of the game's most controversial incidents in it's history.

Given the game is barely covered, and until this year you couldn't even watch a FTA game live on telly I believe Melbourne has come a long way.

 

[dukey]

As I agree the Sharks and Roosters are dead weight I'm going to jump in on this one. I think the Titans are dead weight too. But not the Storm. Cronulla and "Sydney" are not important markets. They aren't big markets, and there are lots of other teams in close proximity.

Long term, will the existence of the Sharks and Roosters help lay a foundation for league to grow significantly in those areas? IMO, no. Does the existence of the Storm help grow the presence in a key market? Absolutely. Granted I don't think it's very fast and spectacular progress, but having a presence and growing the game in a region like Melbourne has benefits. So even though they don't pull big crowds, their existence is still purposeful. Is the existence of the Sharks and the Roosters going to provide the same sort of potential benefits? Not at all.

I agree with what you're saying 100%, I'm just pointing out that Coxy's reasoning isn't specific enough.

 

[Ari Gold]

So what is the harm in KEEPING the teams? Unless you're going to completely replace them with more potential worthy options then getting rid of them will do more harm than good.

Losing Sydney teams wouldn't exactly benefit TV deals in the future considering you've got a city of 4.5 million people (lots of viewers) so losing 4 teams could be a disaster for ratings. Just because the Chooks and Manly don't get huge crowds, it doesn't mean they don't have a big supporter base who would watch games on the Tele.

Unless you have another 4 great candidates to replace 4 Sydney teams, then all ideas about the games growth is pretty much idealistic crap.

To be fair, I completely agree with this too. There is no benefit in simply removing a team as it adversely affects broadcast rights. That said, I feel that a Perth team is so important to both the game and broadcast rights (being 2 hours behind is huge for that) that if a single 15 team season facilitated the entry of a Perth team, it would be well worth it.

And to answer your question about Melbourne, they have made frustratingly little progress. The fact they have "won" premierships in that time really only makes that slow progress worse. That still doesn't mean there's not going to be a benefit long term though. The Brisbane Bears made almost no impact on the AFL for years, and then when they merged with Fitzroy they had success, coupled with proper television exposure. The result? Even though the Lions sucked ass last year, they still averaged over 20,000 fans to their home games. The Storm will take a little longer than that, but I think the AFL is proof that persistence in key markets and mass exposure through television broadcasting is critical to long-term success.

 

[Big Pete]

The harm is in the title.

We went off-topic, I believe the code isn't as strong as it should be because clubs are constantly cannibalising one another. Instead of building teams & showing loyalty we see clubs like the Bulldogs buy their way out of trouble only for it to eventually get the better of them.

Obviously, they're not the only ones and it isn't exclusive to Sydney or NSW for that matter but the difference here is proximity. 9 teams in one location leads to a lot of mayhem, poor management and a mediocre competition.

Take Penrith for instance.

Have one of the best Rugby League nurseries & are/were successful in the lower grades but have been complacent at best in first grade. Why? Because they paid ridiculous amounts of money just to keep star players, just to survive. They don't have third party deals to lure players, no real big attractions and that's because the market is just so congested.

It's taken one of the best Rugby League managers in history in Gus Gould to get them back on track and it's still going to take a long time.

Compare them to us, the Broncos.

We've been the envy of the game since day 1. We have the pick of the tv stations, sponsors & players. Why? Because we don't have much competition here. It's been reported so many times how players past and present just wanted to be with their family & have accepted considerably less offers to stay with our club. As a result, we have one of the most successful sporting franchises in Australia.

I would love to see the game reward loyalty & to see more one club players & I don't feel I'm alone there. Incentives should be put into place, especially if they've been at the club since Harold Matts or Cyril Connell Cup.

I'm not saying we should cut the heads off 4 Sydney clubs pronto. What am I saying is that we should do more to promote club loyalty and as the game grows we shouldn't help clubs like Cronulla, Manly (or the Titans if they continue to f**k up). It's time we accept how fantastic our sport is and stop trying to appeal to those stuck in the good ol' days.

 

[Coxy]

Harm is not in the title, how does it hurt the game if players move to other clubs? Club loyalty is practically dead these days, there's not much you can do to promote it unless salary cap rules are changes and there are exemptions for loyal players. It's not just Sydney teams doing it, it's all clubs. The game has evolved. It's more about money these days than playing for one club. It's the nature of the sport these days. Nothing to do with how Sydney teams pinch each others players and saturate the market.

Anyway, the only club that is dead weight is Cronulla. Small supporter base and they're in an area that pretty much have another 2 teams occupying it (St George and Souths). Always in a financial heap.

Same applies to Souths and Roosters. Same area. Small supporter bases (despite the crap about Souths being so popular, their crowds are generally average). Financially they're both OK at the moment, but take out the sugar daddies and they're both ****ed.

 

[Bucking Beads]

There is simply no doubt that Sydney has too many teams. I can't see how you can disagree with this. A Perth side is a must and possibly another NZ side could be viable. Brisbane should be able to support another side as well.

 

[Bucking Beads]

You're saying Sydney has too many teams but you'd welcome the idea of another Brisbane team? Really? That doesn't make sense at all. You don't try and saturate another city, that would be ridiculous.

One more team isn't going to saturate Brisbane. It will also help with the tv deal. It's ok you just don't get it. You live in a fantasy land of tunnels, great night life, no passion and losing origin

 

[Bucking Beads]

I did debate the topic. Bit rich you of all people calling someone a tosser. No surprise to see you resort to name calling again. Seriously grow up.

South East Queensland should be able to support 3 teams if the clubs are run correctly. At this stage Sydney can't support 8 sides and they will never be able to.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Ah the Central Coast myth again. NSW doesn't need anymore Rugby League teams.