General NRL Expansion/Reduction

What is the ideal number of teams?


  • Total voters
    51
The problem with times like this the teams lost would likely not be in the ideal areas from a strategic position. The number of clubs in Sydney should be reduced.

Before the commission was formed that was talked about as something that needed to be thought through and worked through. Now that gets pushed as a strength, probably cause getting rid of clubs is in the too hard basket.

Super League the aim was a 12 or 14 team competition to increase the quality. The 20 team competition definitely lowered quality.

Someone posted 16 is the ideal number with the time slots the broadcaster want covered. If there was to be some natural attrition it might help expanding in a few years with teams in the markets they would like to cover like Perth, second Brisbane or another Queensland side, second NZ side.

What we have learned the last few weeks. Relocation is likely off the table as the NRL can't afford the financial rewards that used to be promised for relication.
 

bruce

Contributor
Maybe in needs an external organisation looking at the big picture to force through what the NRL can’t because they are to close to the teams.
Couldn't be any more external than Fox, but Rupert Murdoch's way of doing business was to print trash newspapers to sell to the lowest common denominator. It is hard to believe his father was the brave war correspondent who blew the lid on Gallipoli.

Murdoch had no understanding of the average league fan and employed yes men to run the game. No need to argue, look what happened. The Sydney clubs, who understood the fans, worked on the grass roots and kicked his arse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Worried2Death

mt.wellington

Warriors Orange Peeler
Murdoch had no understanding of the average league fan and employed yes men to run the game. No need to argue, look what happened. The Sydney clubs, who understood the fans, worked on the grass roots and kicked his arse.
What is this in reference to? Super League Wars???
 
  • Like
Reactions: bruce

bruce

Contributor
What is this in reference to? Super League Wars???
What happened was that Murdoch paid millions to all the stars but the ARL had the grass roots coming through eg. Trent Barrett, so they had a game where as Super League had aging superstars. Murdoch showed his ignorance years before when he said he would get rid of Wests because they were losers. Go figure. They are still there.
 

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
everyone keeps talking 16 clubs is required for the Fox viewing contracts. If they were instead to go with a two tired comp like i advocate, they would be able to drop numbers and still have nearly twice as much content for TV. Possibly bringing in zones for teams would make it interesting. Say Sydney is restricted to 4 teams. NSW out of Sydney two teams, Queensland 3 teams, Canberra 1, Victoria , Tasmania, South Australia 2, NZ and Western Australia 2.
Then where you have more than 4 clubs wanting to play in Sydney they can hold a local derby to pick the 4 strongest. They also have the opportunity to relocate their club etc.

Look i know im spitballing here, but there is no reason to look at 16 as a number that stops anything happening, as a two tier comp with a local sydney derby easily creates a 30 game a week program. As it is now a lot of the content on TV would have very little viewership where the top teams regularly pull big numbers. No matter what the players are not going to be getting the massive money they have been on before but this would allow the game to grow and provide for a much stronger comp over all.
 

bruce

Contributor
Look i know im spitballing here, but there is no reason to look at 16 as a number that stops anything happening, as a two tier comp with a local sydney derby easily creates a 30 game a week program.
Let us be honest.

Because of easy poker machine money Sydney became the epicentre of the rugby league world. That got Winfield on board too.

The 12 team competition was riveting compared with the 16 team comp. The money wasn't over the top either, it was Rupert Murdoch who opened that genie bottle, the idiot.

However the Sydney clubs were living off the game in other areas, not just in Oz, but here and England. Tony Kemp suing the NZRL wasn't just about pride. The NSWRL were screwing the Auckland game by pinching players.

Winfield and poker machines are ancient history now, not even in this century, but the Sydney clubs haven't woken up yet, and I doubt ever will.

They gotta go, and if standard business practice post Novid lets them survive I will be very surprised.

We might actually get a 12 team comp.
 
Natural attrition would probably be the only way we will get to a competition with a more national footprint bringing in some of the new bids like Perth, second Brisbane or another Queensland area, second NZ site.

Go smaller before allowing new clubs in when the economy picks up again or with new broadcast deals.

In Predator Jesse Ventura said "They are dug deeper than an Alabama tick". He could of been talking about Sydney rugby league clubs. They have better survival instincts than cockroaches. They agree there should be less clubs and may some merge or relocate. But it should always be the other guys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bruce and Noitall
We might actually get a 12 team comp.

From what I've been reading about some of the clubs in Sydney, I'd say we may end up next season with:
1. Broncos
2. Bulldogs/Eels
3. Cowboys
4. Dragons/Sharks
5. Knights
6. Manly (being propped up by the Bears)
7. Raiders
8. Roosters
9. Souths
10. Storm
11. Warriors
12. West/Panthers

Gone: Titans.
Merged: Bulldogs, Eels, Dragons, Sharks, West Tigers & Panthers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bruce

Kestrel84

Rippin' and a Tearin'
Contributor
Too many teams in Sydney. You can't touch the foundation clubs or the Dragons (though I hate them). Having the dragons means you don't need the Sharks. Having Rabbitohs means you don't need the Bulldogs.

They cover a decent area, but surely 2 out of Eels/Panthers/Tigers would survive, and Tigers are already a merged club. Which means you'd need to merge Eels and Panthers?

Newcastle is too far north to just say 'merge Knights and Sea Eagles', and I'm biased as I'm a Manly supporter... So I want them left alone.

Cut Titans and that is 4 teams gone. Too easy!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tragic
A 12 team competition makes the most sense. Financially and structurally.
I think only 4 or 5 teams break even currently, the rest cost money to run.
Against the Warriors is the cost of Trans Tasman travel and accommodation.
Plus their woeful record of late.
12 teams would allow a home- and- away competition. 22 weeks plus finals.
This, along with SOO makes a full season.

Make 2021 a cutthroat season. The top 12 continue; the bottom 4 get relegated to obscurity.
Make for a seriously good season.
All in.
 

Kestrel84

Rippin' and a Tearin'
Contributor
Of all of the clubs in Sydney, they’d be two with the biggest claims to remain in the NRL. Big junior base, growing population, good support, sponsorship ...

Panthers just said yesterday they won't have the money to put into their junior development, so might be a good time to combine powers with somebody.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: bruce
From what I've been reading about some of the clubs in Sydney, I'd say we may end up next season with:
1. Broncos
2. Bulldogs/Eels
3. Cowboys
4. Dragons/Sharks
5. Knights
6. Manly (being propped up by the Bears)
7. Raiders
8. Roosters
9. Souths
10. Storm
11. Warriors
12. West/Panthers

Gone: Titans.
Merged: Bulldogs, Eels, Dragons, Sharks, West Tigers & Panthers.
East Tigers in Brisbane have put their hand up for an NRL team. If Easts in Brisbane can pay for the brand name by Wests Tigers somehow being able to demerge from Balmain (as it’s pretty much just the Tigers brand that’s worth anything), we could have a Brisbane Tigers. If the Magpies needed to merge, which I’m not sure they do, you can have a sensible merger of Western Suburbs and Canterbury which was suggested in the late 90’s or take advantage of the Panthers not being able to fund their juniors moving forward
 
USA Rugby has filed for bankruptcy. If a national sports body can go under, what chance do the NRL sides which are not in great financial condition have? Expect that some will either fold or merge or not be able to have an NRL side next season.
 
USA Rugby has filed for bankruptcy. If a national sports body can go under, what chance do the NRL sides which are not in great financial condition have? Expect that some will either fold or merge or not be able to have an NRL side next season.
With all due respect to USA rugby I would hope that a professional team in a country which has the sport as it’s premier winter code would have more funding options. USA would be almost 100% reliant on the world game to finance them. And different countries with different employment laws will have different options in how to move forward.

I cannot see why all sports can’t lay off everyone non essential, reduce all outgoings and hunker down to get through this. All organisations should have reserves to cover several months at full outgoings if they are well managed.