General NRL Expansion/Reduction

What is the ideal number of teams?


  • Total voters
    51

Geoff Public

Contributor
The several months till resumption of life everyone is talking about is local. International travel may not resume till an inoculation is found. That's predicted to be 18 months away.
If that is our predicament I would base a Warriors team in the site of the Brisbane expansion team. Then when international travel is possible, Warriors come home, expansion team starts up
 

bruce

Contributor
The several months till resumption of life everyone is talking about is local. International travel may not resume till an inoculation is found. That's predicted to be 18 months away.
If that is our predicament I would base a Warriors team in the site of the Brisbane expansion team. Then when international travel is possible, Warriors come home, expansion team starts up
They might be too broke to afford that.
 

mt.wellington

Warriors Orange Peeler
The NSWRL were screwing the Auckland game by pinching players.
I thought it was the Labour Government lol 🙄...

Dogs came into the comp 1935 so not that new, Manly 1947, and Sharks and Penrith 1967
What year a team started and even if they are a foundation club wont count for shit in this new era I reckon. People talking about this and that miss the actual underlying thing that pins everything these days and that is money.

The clubs that will fall by the wayside are those that can't afford to pay the bills and look most likely to need another bowl of porridge from an empty pot.

The Warriors continued inclusion will come down to it too. While the travel and accommodation costs are the highest amongst all visiting clubs they will have to weigh that against what the club bring in via memberships, merchandise and most importantly the SKY TV broadcasting rights. While this country has its fair share of true blue league supporters the exclusion of the Warriors will slash SKY ratings for all NRL games and with that the value of the broadcasting rights.

What any reduction in teams they must take into account first and foremost is that the game continues to represent as many people as possible and that is only achieved by representing the widest area possible. The maths on it are very simple. More people equals more money.

It is unquestionable that at least two Sydney teams must go. Those putting the longevity of clubs ahead of the financials must forget about clubs like the Bluebags, Bears, Magpies or Dirty Reds.

Only two foundation clubs exist now if you take away the merged clubs...
 
Why can’t the comp stay the same size and lower the cost structure - namely salary cap?
Each club fundamentally should be built and run on a solid and sound business model.
I think it’s important to remember tribalism is what makes the comp so compelling.
The talk of rationalising the competition feels more like diluting the competition to me.
 

mt.wellington

Warriors Orange Peeler
Why can’t the comp stay the same size and lower the cost structure - namely salary cap?
Each club fundamentally should be built and run on a solid and sound business model.
I think it’s important to remember tribalism is what makes the comp so compelling.
The talk of rationalising the competition feels more like diluting the competition to me.
Personally I'd love to see it expanded but recent talks would suggest that they can't afford it.

That is also the reason why there is talk of a reduced competition. I wouldn't be surprised to see at least two clubs declare bankruptcy by the end of the season and I doubt very much the NRL will be able to bail anyone out at all.

This is the main reason behind talks of a reduction. Clubs can't afford the current model.

IMO player salaries are the last thing that gets cut. First start at HQ and work your way down to the players. You dont need that many people to run the NRL.

I don't buy memberships, merchandise and TV subscriptions to watch office workers talking shit. I do it to watch very talented players throw a ball around and beat each other up. They are the product and key money earners. They are the ones who face a possible lifetime of nags and niggles. They should get the rewards...
 
IMO player salaries are the last thing that gets cut. First start at HQ and work your way down to the players. You dont need that many people to run the NRL.

I don't buy memberships, merchandise and TV subscriptions to watch office workers talking shit. I do it to watch very talented players throw a ball around and beat each other up. They are the product and key money earners. They are the ones who face a possible lifetime of nags and niggles. They should get the rewards...
As much as people argue that the players are over paid. The end of the day the money the game generates is from what they produce on the field. Sure the executives with their negotiating skills might be able to increase the value a bit but it's still due to the ratings the game produces and the amount of content.

The amount of content is due to the number of games. Live sport is also premium content for broadcasters.

Back when the salary cap was 4.x million in the mid 2000's it would of been frustrating for the players seeing their peers in other codes getting paid more or their team mates poached to other codes all mainly due to money. The NRL would of been worth more and would of generated higher ratings but was stuck due to the 10 year deal after the Super League war.

The NRL and the ARLC have had two deals since then. Think it was 1.4-1.8 million and 1.8-2.2 billion. The actual figures are symantics as its a huge increase.

The fact is there should of been more than enough over those two deals to run the game and to plan for the future. This has also occured over multiple administrations.

The players have a right to feel agrieved. Their club management and the NRL should be taking care of the off field stuff and have cleary been found wanting.
 
Personally I'd love to see it expanded but recent talks would suggest that they can't afford it.

That is also the reason why there is talk of a reduced competition. I wouldn't be surprised to see at least two clubs declare bankruptcy by the end of the season and I doubt very much the NRL will be able to bail anyone out at all.

This is the main reason behind talks of a reduction. Clubs can't afford the current model.

IMO player salaries are the last thing that gets cut. First start at HQ and work your way down to the players. You dont need that many people to run the NRL.

I don't buy memberships, merchandise and TV subscriptions to watch office workers talking shit. I do it to watch very talented players throw a ball around and beat each other up. They are the product and key money earners. They are the ones who face a possible lifetime of nags and niggles. They should get the rewards...
[/What year a team started and even if they are a foundation club wont count for shit in this new era I reckon. People talking about this and that miss the actual underlying thing that pins everything these days and that is money.QUOTE]
Only illustrating when these clubs came into the comp
 
  • Like
Reactions: mt.wellington
I thought it was the Labour Government lol 🙄...


What year a team started and even if they are a foundation club wont count for shit in this new era I reckon. People talking about this and that miss the actual underlying thing that pins everything these days and that is money.

The clubs that will fall by the wayside are those that can't afford to pay the bills and look most likely to need another bowl of porridge from an empty pot.

The Warriors continued inclusion will come down to it too. While the travel and accommodation costs are the highest amongst all visiting clubs they will have to weigh that against what the club bring in via memberships, merchandise and most importantly the SKY TV broadcasting rights. While this country has its fair share of true blue league supporters the exclusion of the Warriors will slash SKY ratings for all NRL games and with that the value of the broadcasting rights.

What any reduction in teams they must take into account first and foremost is that the game continues to represent as many people as possible and that is only achieved by representing the widest area possible. The maths on it are very simple. More people equals more money.

It is unquestionable that at least two Sydney teams must go. Those putting the longevity of clubs ahead of the financials must forget about clubs like the Bluebags, Bears, Magpies or Dirty Reds.

Only two foundation clubs exist now if you take away the merged clubs...
Being a side from 1908 was Souths whole reasoning for not getting kicked out after the Super League war. Dispite pretty much playing in fron of poor crowds and being close to a garunteed 2 points for nearly 20 years. They were pretty much saying the criteria should be for everyone except them cause they were the most successful club.

Their performances on and off the field after being brought back in justified their exclusion. It took a wealthy benefactor to turn things around. NRL 360 they used Souths as an example that things can turn around for the strugglers. We can hold clubs cause they might have a boom cycle in 10-15 years.

The Warriors bring in the merchandise. The travel costs might get some of the poorer clubs whinging. The value of the Sky rights could go either way. They likely see it as more valuable with a local side. But their financial position is also not what it once was. That could mean they can't afford the rights or need to do everything they can to keep them inorder to keep content. They also need to stop Spark picking up more content to ease the subsciber churn.

Our owner has just brought the club. A privatley owned sports team is usually a vanity project. He shouldnt be sick of sinking money into it yet. Buying it one year and it closing up the following is pretty much lost money.
 
A comparison of player payments as a percentage of income in some professional sporting competitions.

NRL about 50% of the income goes to players

AFL 73% of revenue (although more players in squads than the NRL so average payments per player are lower)
English premier league 60%
NFL: 58%
MLB: 53%
NBA 49-50% (down from 57% pre 2011)
NZ rugby 36%
NZ cricket 26.6%
Indian cricket 26%
Cricket Australia 20% (2017)
American open tennis 14%
Golf 13%

From the above statistics the nrl and afl pays their players in line with the premier professional sporting competitions in the world. I personally don’t see the players value sitting that high for smaller local sporting competitions and would think more around the rugby & cricket level. Bigger sorts can absorb the operational costs easier and pay players more. Pre 2011 the nrl and nfl ratio was around 20%.

As an interesting aside:
England's second-tier football division, the EFL Championship, increased players payments from 99% to 106% in 2017/18. Such are the rewards of promotion from the Championship to the Premier League!
 

mt.wellington

Warriors Orange Peeler
Sure the executives with their negotiating skills might be able to increase the value a bit but it's still due to the ratings the game produces and the amount of content.
This is currently being perfectly illustrated by the fact that NRL HQ is still working furiously, the players are in iso and the broadcasters aren't going to pay their next installment...
 
Gotta love the NRL's warcry of "let's all, players and officials, share the financial pain!" and then suggesting the players will need to take a pay cut of 85% while the NRL officials will take a pay cut of 25%. A smidgen of difference, there.

Maybe Todd will come to regret that when he's taking his "leave without pay", which he's apparantly pledged to do. When he's not snowed under at work. When the borders are opened. When the airlines - those that survive - are back flying. When the dang virus is under control. When the weather's better....Look, Todd will do it. One day.

Methinks when they were boys and girls these current-day NRL people were talking in the back of the class while the teacher warbled something about percentages and how they work. And maybe they didn't really listen when their parents taught them the concept of "Sharing."
 

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
If the Warriors are based there for 2021 their facilities will get a good test to see if they are NRL ready. The ground is all well and good seating 10,000 and 1,500 standing but you would want a higher capacity than that for an NRL side, especially at the start when its new and likely to pull decent crowds.

They had on NRL 360 Redcliffe said if they joined they would be the richest club. The Broncos are currently the bench mark there with being publicly listed, draw the crowds it would be ideal if it was the competition average.

Wayne Bennett as an option as coach. The way things are going he will be like Mr Burns on the Simpsons who is always around in the future getting wheeled out somehow being kept alive.
 
If the Warriors are based there for 2021 their facilities will get a good test to see if they are NRL ready. The ground is all well and good seating 10,000 and 1,500 standing but you would want a higher capacity than that for an NRL side, especially at the start when its new and likely to pull decent crowds.

They had on NRL 360 Redcliffe said if they joined they would be the richest club. The Broncos are currently the bench mark there with being publicly listed, draw the crowds it would be ideal if it was the competition average.

Wayne Bennett as an option as coach. The way things are going he will be like Mr Burns on the Simpsons who is always around in the future getting wheeled out somehow being kept alive.
I’m pretty sure they said they would play out of Suncorp Stadium if admitted with the odd game at their spiritual ground. 👍🏾