expansion

[CharlieG]

18 maybe, but never 20!

The NRL plays a 26 week season, so there's space for them all to be there. Lists only really require about 30 players (less if clubs have the capacity to call up players from feeder clubs, which I think they do). 20 teams times 30 players is 600 players - with two countries (plus the Pacific region more broadly), there should be enough talent available.

maybe.

never.

Any competition that is claiming to be a national one must have teams in each of the mainland capitals.

absolutely, but only via a relocation from Sydney. there will never be another NSW-based team.

In which case the 20th team can be in Brisbane.

Assuming there was an 18-team competition, the additional 2 teams would be from Wellington and either South East Queensland or Perth.

I agree with that ranking. I see Perth as a higher priority for the NRL (10-15 years down the track) than either Brisbane (where they already have one of the leading brands in the competition) or Gosford.

probably right.

I don't think it can be doubted. The high failure rate essentially proves it. The only teams that are left in their original form are Canberra, Brisbane, Newcastle, North Queensland and Melbourne. You can throw in the Warriors as being in most respects the same club that started in 1995. A 50% success rate is very disappointing.

 

[Tigger Please!]

I don't think it can be doubted. The high failure rate essentially proves it. The only teams that are left in their original form are Canberra, Brisbane, Newcastle, North Queensland and Melbourne. You can throw in the Warriors as being in most respects the same club that started in 1995. A 50% success rate is very disappointing.

Perth were pretty much booted to make way for Melbourne. By 1997 the Reds had a jersey flegg (under 21's) squad completely made up of West Austalians - they were going places.
The Gold Coast were another team booted in the Super League/ARL treaty despite having $1 million sitting in their bank.
The 1995 season was a good comp. The ARL allowed the new franchises to build themselves from scratch so it didn't affect the existing clubs too much. Some of the inner-Sydney clubs were struggling financially and would've died a natual death under the ARL's strategy rather than being prematurely culled under the Super League's. St George and Illawarra would've eventually merged regardless. Cronulla would've died if it wasn't for the money they got for switching to Super League. Balmain and Souths were in serious financial trouble and would'nt've lasted too much longer. Norths were preparing to move to the Central Coast. Wests were on shaky ground but would've found a way to survive - they always did. If Super league hadn't've happened, by 2000 we probably would've seen an ARL comp like this:

Nth Qld
Sth Qld
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Newcastle
Central Coast Bears
Manly Warringah
Parramatta
Penrith
Wests
Canterbury Bankstown
Easts
St George Illawarra
Canberra
Perth
Auckland

 

[sainters]

Exactly Littleduck.
As for the Swans becoming poular because of all the hard work by the AFL what a load of c**p, I think you will find the super league war and the flow on effects had something to do with their increase in popularity. You may have two teams in Sydney by 2015 but you will only have one by 2020. Good luck.

There will still be 2 teams in 2020, the AFL has money to help develop the game mate.

 

[Kurt Angle ©]

Perth were pretty much booted to make way for Melbourne. By 1997 the Reds had a jersey flegg (under 21's) squad completely made up of West Austalians - they were going places.

If anything this shows you how much SL f*cked things up.

IN 1994, the battelground for the codes was Perth. RL in Perth in 1994 was more popular than AFL in Sydney or Brisbane. It had it's local GF shown on TV and local players not too far removed from the standard of play not too far removed from the east coast to make their juniors viable for the elite competition.

But it took 50 years to get them their, and right now it is basically back to zero.

All you have right now is ex-pats to support them, which make it as fundamentally weak as the swans, except in a city 1/3 the size of Sydney.

 

[copa]

the nrl is doomed if they concentrate in nsw and qld. expanding to nz would be quite stupid cos its union territory. .

The NRL has had a team in NZ for quite a while.

 

[copa]

The NRL plays a 26 week season, so there's space for them all to be there. Lists only really require about 30 players (less if clubs have the capacity to call up players from feeder clubs, which I think they do). 20 teams times 30 players is 600 players - with two countries (plus the Pacific region more broadly), there should be enough talent available.

If they scouted in PNG more often there would be plenty of talent. PNG has 5.5 million people and they are as fanatical about RL as NZ (pop:4 million) is about RU.

 

[dr nick]

RL = ACT, NSW, QLD
AR = TAS, VIC, SA, WA
Split = NT

Do the population math and work it out..

That's a rather simplistic argument, given that the AFL have made huge inroads in the ACT, NSW and Qld, whereas there is sweet little vice versa.

Here is a breakdown of the participation numbers in each state and territory:

ACT: AR - 4,500, RL - 2,600, RU - 4,700
NSW: AR - 43,100, RL - 85,800, RU - 80,800
NT: AR - 6,300, RL - 3,200, RU - 3,000
QLD: AR - 38,100, RL - 59,500, RU - 42,500
SA: AR - 54,200, RL - 3,300, RU - 4,100
TAS: AR - 16,900, RL - 1,700, RU - 1,400
VIC: AR - 205,500, RL - 14,800, RU - 2,500
WA: AR - 82,300, RL - 1,300, RU - 5,600

http://www.ausport.gov.au/scorsresearch/ERASS2004/ERASS2004.pdf

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

That's a rather simplistic argument, given that the AFL have made huge inroads in the ACT, NSW and Qld, whereas there is sweet little vice versa.

Here is a breakdown of the participation numbers in each state and territory:

ACT: AR - 4,500, RL - 2,600, RU - 4,700
NSW: AR - 43,100, RL - 85,800, RU - 80,800
NT: AR - 6,300, RL - 3,200, RU - 3,000
QLD: AR - 38,100, RL - 59,500, RU - 42,500
SA: AR - 54,200, RL - 3,300, RU - 4,100
TAS: AR - 16,900, RL - 1,700, RU - 1,400
VIC: AR - 205,500, RL - 14,800, RU - 2,500
WA: AR - 82,300, RL - 1,300, RU - 5,600

http://www.ausport.gov.au/scorsresearch/ERASS2004/ERASS2004.pdf

How the hell can AR have more players in Canberra than RL?

How can the NT have more RL players than the ACT?

How the hell is RU so popular?

How the hell is AR so big all over the place?

I think these figures are bullshyte.

I grew up near Canberra and AR is nothing up there compared to RL.

All BS.

Oh and LoL at the Tassie figures, won't be long before they take over NT, ACT, Vic and all the others with their no ****ing teams.

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

18 maybe, but never 20!

18 team league:

North Queensland
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Newcastle
Central Coast (moved Souths)
Roosters
Bulldogs
Sharks
Penrith
Manly
Parramatta
Dragons
Tigers
Canberra
Melbourne
Perth
Auckland
Wellington

If 20, add:

Adelaide
4th Queensland team (ie Central Qld)

 

[Hicham]

Hahahahaha.

Those figures are as accurate as the infamous Union calculator.

A laugh nonetheless, I spose.

(Nice **** take, Nick).

 

[1908]

Sir_Adrian84 why did you move Souths and not the Roosters? Do you think by moving a team they suddenly start winning? After all they still have the same players?

If any club needs moving, it would be the Roosters, lack of support and junior numbers.