16 Team Competition.

[LeagueRhino]

I think the NRL has the correct balance now. Do rugby league fans think 16 teams is the optimal number for the NRL? I would love to see another Brisbane and a Perth team, but i don't think it wouldnt be wise to do that right now. The only problem is the more longer we leave Perth out of the NRL, the more harder it will be to establish a fanbase.

Boy doesn't the NRL comp look so much better with 8 matches a weekend (as opposed to seven) Hope the NRL smashes the 16k crowd average attendance this year.

 

[||-GOB-||]

With enough planning we should have a 20 team comp within 10-15 years, unfortuinately with guys like Gallop (mr stability himself) in charge that won't happen.

 

[Hap Hapablap]

get one in perth as soon as possible. i think 18 teams should suffice.

 

[I_LUV_AFL]

With enough planning we should have a 20 team comp within 10-15 years, unfortuinately with guys like Gallop (mr stability himself) in charge that won't happen.

If we have 20 teams then we have 4 teams at the bottom who get smashed every week. Bad idea.

Maybe 18 team but definitely no more then that. A team in Perth and maybe another NZ (Wellington), QLD (Brisbane) or even a VIC (Geelong??) team.

David Gallop is an excellent leader. The NRL hasn't gone from strength to strength for no reason. Us punters have big ideas but unfortunately, most of the time they are unsustainable and will never work. David Gallop is right on top of everything.

 

[||-GOB-||]

If we have 20 teams then we have 4 teams at the bottom who get smashed every week. Bad idea.

Not if there is enough planning to ensure that each new team isn't rushed into the comp and have plenty of time to build a team like the Titans have done.

Maybe 18 team but definitely no more then that. A team in Perth and maybe another NZ (Wellington), QLD (Brisbane) or even a VIC (Geelong??) team.

Perth, Central Coast, 4th QLD, 2nd NZ, Adelaide. Pick 4.

David Gallop is an excellent leader. The NRL hasn't gone from strength to strength for no reason. Us punters have big ideas but unfortunately, most of the time they are unsustainable and will never work. David Gallop is right on top of everything.

David Gallop isn't a bad guy per se. He just doesn't take risks, which is what was needed after the billion $ SL war. Now the game is back to the popularity it had in the mid-nineties they can think about seriously expanding again.

 

[LeagueRhino]

You can't just add four more new teams in the next 10 years. The population in Australia just doesn't warrant it. I think 16 teams should be the go until 2015. David Gallop is cautious and rightly so.

 

[LeagueRhino]

I hope we don't have a 17 team comp (damm i hate the bye)

 

[Jabso]

I think you need a good 10 or so years with the current teams. I hope you don't mind an outsiders point of view but one of the big turn-offs for me with the NRL is the amount of teams that fold and merge. I know having the two leagues didn't help, but stability does work.

 

[1908]

Gallop is a News puppet. Why is the game selling itself short by millions each year?

 

[LeagueRhino]

Gallop is a News puppet. Why is the game selling itself short by millions each year?

How so? Is the game losing millions because gallop is in charge? Or did you mean the game is losing millions because there isn't enough teams? Or both?

 

[1908]

Because the game is owned by the people they are doing deals with. Smacks of self interset. Why would you charge yourself top dollar? Roy Masters recently wrote an article where he says the NRL get something like $350,000 to show a game on Fox whilst the AFL gets nearly double, yet we have something like 80 of the top 100 shows and AFL has 3. We have them by the b**** yet the extra cash that could fund clubs or development isn't being paid. AS I said Gallop is a puppet who just spews out rhetoric. Anyone could have lifted league from the dark days of the SL war, could the game go even lower than that period? Of course not.

 

[rooboy_88]

how many teams are based in NSW?

with looking at it vaguely a team in either perth wellington or the central coast id be the go.

 

[Ancient and Loyal]

18 teams.

Kick the Sharks to the Curb or relocate them (15)

Perth (16)
Redcliffe/SunCoast/Northside (17)
Wellington (18)

Just imo.

If the Roosters decide to relocate to Gosford, It'd be just ace.

 

[1908]

how many teams are based in NSW?

This is where the population is. Take teams out of Sydney you weaken the game and allow other sports an opportunity. Do you think the Swans and Waratahs would be big if the Bears were still around? That area, the north shore and Central Coast is a RL black hole. 800,000 people live there. The only reason why we compete with AFL is because of Sydney weaken that and watch the game suffer, besides what's wrong with natural attrition.

 

[Hoops]

why do you guys think Perth would embrace a RL team? Aussie Rules has never been bigger, and they seem to have taken to the underperfoming force.

And support for the Warriors is mediocre at best, so why would Wellington a city that's a lot smaller than Auckland work?

I cannot see the NRL being able to further expand outside of its heartland areas for a long time to come.

The most feesable sounds like another Brisbane team, but have the Bronco's already sown up all of the support?

 

[POBT]

I think that the logical progression is to Perth. Whether that is in addition to the current 16 teams, I don't know. I suspect the finances of one or two clubs might be determinative. WA has plenty of money and genuine sports fans - they'd get along to watch a rugby league side.

I am not a Broncos or Titans fan but I wouldn't like to see another team in SE Qld for at least another 10 years, if at all. The Titans deserve the opportunity to establish themselves in the marketplace.

 

[tugga]

I think 16 teams is logical, but I think there are too many teams in Sydney.
One or two of them will be forced to relocate.
Now before Sydneysiders start getting stuck into me, I also believe there are too many AFL teams in Victoria and two need to be relocated.
Perth and Adelaide could stake claims, but not at the same time. need to tread carefully there.
A second NRL team in Vic is possible one day but not in the next decade.

 

[1908]

Too many teams in Sydney?
A team in Adelaide?
A second team in Vic?

What planet are you on?

 

[1908]

With reports that SA may pull out of S14 post 2010, there could be an opening for a Perth team to step into the breach if S14 countries went their own way, afterall SA and NZ don't need Australia.

From the Mail & Guardian:

Report: SA could bow out of Super 14

Sydney, Australia



21 October 2006 09:00

South Africa may withdraw from the Super 14 rugby competition after 2010, leaving room for a Japanese team, while Argentina could join an expanded Tri-Nations, reports said on Saturday.

Support is flagging for the Super 14 provincial series in South Africa and there is a strong push for major changes to both competitions after the current Sanzar participation agreement runs out, the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper said.

The newspaper said the changes could be reality within a few years with influential Australian rugby officials receptive to the proposals.

"Australian officials know that their South African counterparts are gradually losing interest in the Super 14, and for some time have been keen to align with European competitions -- especially as it is in virtually the same time zone and involves less travel," the report said.

The newspaper said South African officials have complained their Super 14 teams are severely disadvantaged as they must spend extensive time on the road, while their players struggle to stay motivated during the lengthy tournament.

South Africa's poor record has not helped local interest in the competition, prompting Australian officials to hear their Sanzar partners are looking for alternatives, the Herald said.

There were reports before the Sanzar deal was extended last year that South Africa would depart from the then Super 12 for Europe.

"South African officials have told me they're not keen on the Super 14, because the provinces see better value going up north. But they remain keen on the Tri-Nations," one Australian Rugby Union (ARU) official told the Herald.

The newspaper said South Africa's interest in the Tri-Nations reflects the intense traditional Test rivalry between the Springboks and the All Blacks.

South Africa have also been successful in the Tri-Nations -- winning it in 1998 and 2004 -- and have developed an often tense relationship with the Wallabies.

But the newspaper said South African and Australian officials realise the Tri-Nations needs to be revitalised, boosting Argentina's push for inclusion.

If the Tri-Nations were expanded, Argentina might base themselves in South Africa, obviating the need for other teams to travel to Argentina for matches.

Australia has improved its rugby relations with Japan, with officials at the ARU believing that part of the rugby world holds promise in other areas, particularly financially. This was behind Australia's push for Japan to stage the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

Key ARU officials have been invited to Tokyo next month for celebrations for the Japan Rugby Union's 80th anniversary, including a match between the Australian Prime Minister's XV, involving six Wallabies, and Japan in Tokyo on November 4. -- Sapa-AFP

 

[Hap Hapablap]

perth can definetly have a rugby league team in a few years. have the population and tonnes of eastern states migrants. they dread to know theres no league on tv so having a new team here would bring them as the core support group. we could easily bring in 20-25000 per week. we do it with the force.

 

[Dagless]

Adelaide is pretty much a bad idea, as has already been proven with the Rams. Last year we did get 10000 into Hindmarsh, but then again that would unlikely happen with a bad team with no wins. Anyway, I think 16 is perfect, as those in Adelaide already have teams (all the League fans I know wouldnt change to an Adelaide team if the entered, neither would I) A solid foundation has to be present, even if it is something like the Force in WA. Although they are totally different games, most non-NSW and Queenslanders see Rugby as Rugby, without that much difference in the two). Perth would be the best choice. IMO

 

[Ancient and Loyal]

why do you guys think Perth would embrace a RL team? Aussie Rules has never been bigger, and they seem to have taken to the underperfoming force.

Because the city is full of Migrants from Eastern Australia that weren't there in the 1990's, and the club was never really given a chance to develop because of the Super League War.

When it happens this time, the WAR will enter a completely different RL world, one that's stable, strong and unified.

And support for the Warriors is mediocre at best, so why would Wellington a city that's a lot smaller than Auckland work?

The Auckland Public is notoriously fickle, even when it comes to the Auckland Blues. They've had a dire few years. Watch them draw in good crowds with the squad they've got this year...

I cannot see the NRL being able to further expand outside of its heartland areas for a long time to come.

Your entitled to your opinion.

The most feesable sounds like another Brisbane team, but have the Bronco's already sown up all of the support?

You don't have the slightest Idea about the Brisbane Market then. More Rugby League Fans in Brisbane hate the Broncos than support them. It's one of the reasons that Titan Support is actually rivalling Broncos support in the Redland Shire, Logan City and Ipswich...A club for the Northside of Brisbane would have more than enough spectators and fans too support it.