Just a Game
- Aug 28, 2010
Yeah I don’t know the logistics of removing or moving a team but the tigers after 12 years of abject failure on and off the field have probably waived their right to an nrl license. As @Foordy said.It is a good question. It sounds like the NRL want it to be a bitza team, part here, part there. Part Pacific but mostly pseudo-Qld team. If they want to do this, whatever, just make sure there is a good business case for it. Because if you have a team playing home games all over the place, that make it hard to keep top talent eventually if you kind of become wandering nomads, that isn't going to appeal to a lot of top end players.
For 18-20 teams, I'd go:
18. Perth (no brainer)
19. Pacific (whether NZ2 or Qld5 or some mixture there of)
I would also be moving the worst performing Sydney team to the central coast or deleting them and bringing back the bears.
Dissolve them and let Perth have first dibs on their squad.
I also think new teams should get confirmed 2 years in advanced and the NRL should pay each player a %bonus outside the cap for new team / relocation rebate. To establish them.
10% of their contract value on top of their contract as an example. Along with a $200k marquee player bonus.
Otherwise you will be relying on Wayne Bennett to force fringe players to avoid the spoon each time a new club starts