Remove this Banner Ad

Expansion

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Two top priorities: Perth and NZ II team. Then worry about Brisbane and maybe Central Coast. Why?

Perth consistently shows an interest in the one-off games, with big fan bases and soon to be a sprawling city that is already attracting people from the eastern seaboard wanting a change of pace in an urban environment with cheaper costs of living, as well as a high quality rectangular stadium.

NZ loves league but not as much as union, obviously. The Warriors struggle to compete with the 5 SuperRugby franchises and have no local rivalries, and a second team, from another city, would boost interest in both the Warriors and the second team (mate v mate situation).

Brisbane sustained an entire league, but the NRL has tried and failed with the Crushers to introduce a second team into the city. The support for the Broncos is too passionate to turn against the maroon and gold, so this team should be lower-priority. Another option would be to base them in Brisbane with a provision to relocate to another market (Adelaide, Wellington, etc.) should interest fail.

The Bears are the traditionalist's dream to return to the league after the Northern Eagles fiasco. But, the Central Coast, and North Sydney, for that matter, probably won't be able to sustain an independent identity and fan base anymore. While the stadium is ready for an NRL team, would the local population, and former Bears fans, jump to this team, or have some of the fans moved on, either to the Mariners in the A-League, or other NRL clubs or other sports, even? Also, in my opinion, the NRL should not put any more teams in NSW, at least not within proximity to the Sydney metropolitan area.

One market that is a strange case is Adelaide. There doesn't seem to be much buzz about an Adelaide franchise except when thinking back to Super League, and hence why the NRL is unlikely to put a team there. Teams in regional areas such as Cairns, the aforementioned Central Coast, maybe even country NSW could potentially be a possibility, but realistically, at least 1 NSW based team needs to relocate or fold to create a balance in the competition if they want to expand "nationally". I will always consider it an absolute need for one combined, powerful Western Sydney team in the modern NRL, feeding off the junior talent and development from the Eels, with the off-field success of the Panthers, to come to fruition to compete with the fairytale Wanderers and potentially successful Giants. Should the Sharks continue to struggle, or if the Dragons merger disintegrates, a combined Southern or South Coast team would also be appropriate.

In my opinion, as much as I love being raised and growing up with most of the traditional teams (Balmain, Wests, Norths, etc.) still intact, for a truly "National" rugby league in modern Australia, with hopes to become the biggest league in the country, you're going to have to sacrifice a bit of tradition to modernise the game. Hate it or love it, it's a step that will have to be taken eventually if that's what they want. Not that there's anything wrong with the current 16 teams, but if the NRL are serious, they're going to have to step up and make some big decisions.
 
Somehow a "Like" isn't enough to agree with that post. Best thing I've read all day.

Quick question, why would the St George - Illawarra merger fail?

Interesting about Cronulla as well. At the end of the ASADA fiasco, especially if Cronulla are found, to use the AFL's quote, "to bring the game into disrepute", then perhaps a relocation interstate with financial backing would surely have to be on the cards.
 
The only reason I mentioned the merger is because any merger always has a chance of failing; that said the Dragons are the stronger of the joint ventures in my opinion. With Cronulla, they were on the verge of relocation a few years back and got a grant to stay. Personally I'd love to see Manly bugger off only because I don't like them, but realistically it'll either be the Tigpies, Sharks, Eels or Dogs who go first. The Panthers, Rabbits and Sea Eagles are probably too strong off field to worry about it, and the Knights will be safe for a long time, but those 4 teams are the ones who need the most help.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Why are the Roosters in the comp? Playing tonight. I've seen more people at a GWS training session. A joke. They represent no one. Worst name. Worst mascot. Worst colours. See you later, Roosters.

Cronulla to Perth. Manly to Central Coast. Bring in another NZ team and everybody's happy.
 
Fire Storm said:
Why are the Roosters in the comp? Playing tonight. I've seen more people at a GWS training session. A joke. They represent no one. Worst name. Worst mascot. Worst colours. See you later, Roosters.

Cronulla to Perth. Manly to Central Coast. Bring in another NZ team and everybody's happy.
Click to expand...

From memory they are averaging close to 20,000 per game this season. Monday nights are a write off for which ever poor slobs get to play them. Also from memory their mascot and colours are taken from the French national team, the tricolors.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

I had a civil, two paragraph response typed up in response to that but figured I'd only be met with a trolling response. Mod edits are sign enough that this thread is starting to take the wrong path.

To get this back on a more relevant discussion, what are people's thoughts about putting teams in the following six areas? Which do you think is most likely? Which have no chance? Are there any other major areas I have missed?

Perth
Adelaide
2nd NZ team
2nd Brisbane team
Western Queensland
Papua New Guinea
 
bunsen burner said:
4 1/2 years away.

Not sure why people think Perth is a good idea? It's an AFL town and league is barely played there. The NRL will need $20m+ per year for up to 20 years to establish a fan base.

Central Coast on the other hand is a league stronghold and doesn't have a team.......

Brisbane needs another team but is there anyone who doesn't follow the Broncos? Still has to be done.

NRL priorities must be:

Central Coast
Brisbane
Willington
Click to expand...



More like 10-15 million for a good 10 years to Prop up a Rugby league side in Perth. The positive is that NIB stadium capacity will increase from 18,000 to 30-35,000 eventually.

I wouldnt mind having the Adelaide Rams back in the NRL. Me living in Adelaide and No foxtel, Out of the 8 games only 3 are on Free to Air and yes I do like watching NRL games on channel 9 on friday nights and sunday afternoon.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

bunsen burner said:
The AFL has refined its product a lot. The NRL need to but won't because the game is run by inept dinosaurs. The incumbent fans want biffo. I understand this as I don't mind a bit of biffo but if the NRL is to attract a wider audience (and they need to if they want to go into Perth and Adelaide) then they need to call the media/ex-players' bluff and dump the biffo. If they keep appeasing the imcumbent, then they aren't changing. And if they aren't changing, how do they expect to grow?

One thing annoys me is the likes of Johns, Geyer, Gould, etc etc all complain about the game not growing but everytime someone wants to make a positive change it gets howled down with the oft spruiked working class mantra of "this is the people's game and don't change it". There's a lot of morons who are very influential in how League is run.
Click to expand...



You have some good points there...

As much as Andrew Demitriou is disliked in some areas, He has done the right thing putting in money in grass roots football in NSW and Queensland.

Now you said the NRL is run by Inept dinosaurs. That is true to a degree. They are also scared in bleeding money into the possible Perth and Adelaide sides if they are a basket case in the 1st 5 years. Strange how the Melbourne Storm won the NRL title in 1999 with mainly Old veterans and rejects from other clubs.

Again If whoever becomes the 17th and 18th NRL sides, They would have to have a few veterans and Rejects to make the team competitive.
 
The NRL wont be expanding any time soon. 16 is nearly too many teams let alone 17-18.


And Adelaide and Perth are insignificant Cities in Australia. So why do they need an NRL team?
 
Fire Storm said:
The NRL wont be expanding any time soon. 16 is nearly too many teams let alone 17-18.


And Adelaide and Perth are insignificant Cities in Australia. So why do they need an NRL team?
Click to expand...



You can Say Adelaide is insignificant. Perth on the other hand can be good. Considering that WA is the fastest growing state % wise. WAs population grew 3% last year compared to the national average of 2%.

WAs population is around 2.5 million and increased by 83,000 last year. Going by that trend WAs population will be around 3-3.5 million in 10 years. Easily enough for a team in Perth.
 
A team in Hobart maybe? I like many of the young gen would follow a team and support them if they came down here.

At the moment I am a supporter of the Sharks but obviously not a strong supporter, I would fully get behind any tassie team.
 
Watson_my_mind said:
A team in Hobart maybe? I like many of the young gen would follow a team and support them if they came down here.

At the moment I am a supporter of the Sharks but obviously not a strong supporter, I would fully get behind any tassie team.
Click to expand...



Serious question... If Tassie got a team in the NRL, where would they play their home games?
 
Freomaniac said:
Serious question... If Tassie got a team in the NRL, where would they play their home games?
Click to expand...


Hobart of course, superior city. Of course we need our own AFL team before we need a NRL team. You think Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide breathe footy? The state is obsessed, so obsessed that I reckon Launceston and Hobart could hold a team each.

(Note I am uneducated in economics and how government works)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom