NRL NRL Expansion

[wizard of Tauranga]

I refer to viability, adding to the list of pros and cons in regards to player catchment.

Roosters and Storm sure. We all know why the Roosters keep getting players. Raiders have had to resort to English players to be competitive recently. Knights are a few hours away from Sydney. Not a 5 hour flight.
Cowboys? Wouldn’t have a clue tbh. But that’s kinda adding to my point. We can’t have to many teams like that.

When I was referring to “on field” success, I was pretty much dismissing it in regards to the Melbourne Storm, that despite their success. They were losing money for years and have no grassroots.
IMO they’ve been “helped” along the way. Where would the Melbourne Storm be if they weren’t so successful? Gone…….

On field success is a funny one. Obviously it’s important, obviously it’s what we strive for. But when it comes to the big decisions; expansion, direction…….. it’s kinda irrelevant.
It keeps you “off the chopping block”, it doesn’t mean you get to pick who’s on it.
And I point to……..

The Warriors, they aren’t successful. But the NRL would NEVER even consider cutting them. If they did? You can rip that Sky TV deal up, directly losing millions of dollars. And interest in the NRL would plummet reducing the potential player pool. Other than the Brisbane Broncos, you could argue the Warriors are the most important club in the NRL.
Yeah “on field success” is cool. But from the NRL’s perspective, it’s irrelevant. “Someone” will win every year. lol

Personally I find it strange how everyone can see what Melbourne does and it’s explained away by saying “they know the ref can’t keep blowing his whistle” or something similar…… bullshit.
Ah, so they do just get away with it……..
The Warriors sure as hell wouldn’t get away with it.

And it’s the “on field success” that I’m most concerned about with that Perth team. Not as a hater, but because of the potential “help” the NRL could give them. The NRL would be desperate, absolutely desperate to keep the Perth club going.

There really is no upside to the Perth team.
1. No extra money, (unless the WA government gets involved? Idk)
2. No player pool (no real one)
3. Extra travel, Christchurch is closer to the Australian east coast.
4. Extra pressure on existing player pool.
5. Pressure on the NRL to keep them relevant.

I don’t see much upside.

I agree with most of this. Especially about the NRL favouritism. But some upside:

I think the idea of expansion is to grow representation. Perth covers another state with 3m people and when you look at PNG’s 10m it’s clear they are chasing numbers. This ‘footprint’ is important for claims as the national code in the war with AFL. That will translate into increase revenue both from TV rights; sponsorship; govt support; international tv rights, etc. but also mana for the competition (biggest footprint; increasingly international and interstate; bigger viewer numbers; etc)

There will be a limited new player pool but it provides more opportunity for kiwis, Queensland and NSW players to ply their trade. This flows to more players playing first grade to support the international game (As long as the competition doesn’t lose quality). Longer term (20-30 years) I see more local players than Melbourne has ever produced because AFL has a stranglehold on Melbourne.

On the club profitability, with the NRL coving the costs of the player and coaching staff for all teams, it’s very hard to lose money now. With 3m locals I can see it being profitable, even with limited on field success.

But that’s the worry. The on field success. And more in general for me, the game has successful and struggling clubs and it’s hard to get up and down the ladder. Storm, Roosters, Panthers, etc forever top 8. Tigers, Titans, etc stuck in a downward spiral. 20 teams will spread the gap wider and make it harder for the bottom teams like the Tigers to get competitive again, even if Perth goes well.

Ultimately the NRL wants a bigger competition as the National sport and Perth ticks a lot of boxes.

 

[Matiunz]

Interesting tug of war going on with Perth, one POV has the NRL imposing an 11th hour entry fee and trying to extort the WA gov of more money, the other POV is a loan shark businessman trying to low ball the NRL by not stumping up an entry fee.
WA is probably the most stable bid followed by NZ2 then PNG. But money talks which will get WA and PNG in with NZ2 as a maybe 20th

 

[Tohu’s_Knees]

A healthy discussion with some good points and differing of opinions happening here.

To state the obvious, the NRL seem to be desperate to bring the competition up to 20 teams. To do so, they will have to consider many things…….

There seems to be 4 main locations to fit into 3 slots.
Perth, PNG, Brisbane 3 and NZ 2 (SI) with a potential bonus bid Fiji.

Regardless about how anyone feels, it’s seems inevitable that PNG is going to be one of the 3 teams. And despite the obvious problems. There is some clear upside. High risk, high reward. Once the ground work is done…..
IMO, they’ll be no more than a “farm”. To feed the Australian teams of their talent. And better yet, The Australian government is going to pay for it.

That leaves 2 slots. I’ve been clear how I feel about Perth. IMO, it’s an admittedly low risk, but low reward choice.
The NRL can declare that it is indeed a “National” competition take on the AFL. And they also gain an interesting time slot.

Which brings me to the NZ bid, probably based in Christchurch……..
PROs……
1. Player pool, although technically it doesn’t really exist right now. It won’t take long to get going IMO. They can pick up the Kiwis that the Warriors don’t get. And be near the best Rugby Union nursery arguably in THE WORLD. I boldly predict, they will start cranking out players within 5 years. Far more than Melbourne and Perth would produce within
10 years.

2. Sky TV deal. I’m sure Sky will be VERY interested in the idea of having a game every week in a prime time slot. Probably Sunday 4pm. And better yet, that doesn’t clash with the Australian Market. Contributing millions directly to the NRL.

3. Christchurch is safe, which seemed to be the real problem with the PNG bid amongst our members.

4. It would be a direct attack on the NZRU and its resources. Putting further pressure on an already struggling outfit. It won’t be a killer blow that frankly doesn’t exist, but an ocean against a rock process. Slowly but surely chipping away at them. Until the balance of power is more favourable for Rugby League in NZ. They can’t compete with overseas money AND another NRL salary cap. Not long term anyway.

CONs……
1. Finance. I’ll admit, this may be a big one. I don’t have a clue where the money will come from. I’m hopeful the NRL will overlook it with Sky TV surely having to pay more.
Hahaha Luxon is from Christchurch. Hook the lads up……

2. Geography. Pretty self explanatory.

 

[mrblonde]

I still fear that if the Christchurch bid gets the go ahead, we are doomed to, nailed-on, won't-be-moved-for-any-reason 8PM NZT Friday Warriors v Keas or Keas v Warriors games. Maybe the bastards would even give us an early Thursday ie 730PM NZT slot ie 530PM AEDT slot...Seriously, though, that's one of the other issues about an expanded competition. More games per week = more time slots. Monday 9PM NZT coming back?

And a Con for Christchurch might be if they can't sign a super-dooper coach/coaching director right away. Players might like to be close to parents etc, but will they value that closeness over playing for a team doomed to make/have to fight hard to avoid the spoon for several years?

 

[snake77]

The Perth bids entrance fee. Is that something being expected for all of the bids or if we are to believe some of the reasoning around not being a traditional market. That it is just for Perth?

I would be surprised if the NZ bids could pay that amount. I'd guess that would be the top end of the funds they could manage.

 

[MrFrankWhite]

The South Island bid is a little different in the sense that it’ll have plenty of Kiwis it can pull from. It will still need to supplement itself with Aussies and Englishman.
It has the added benefit of getting more money from the SKY TV deal so the finances maybe offset a little from an NRL perspective. The Fox and Nine deals will be mostly the same regardless.
If you were “Joe Kiwi” and you had a contract, same money to go to Perth or Christchurch. Where would you go? 95% will go to Christchurch.
Maybe there’s a bit of wishful thinking for the extra NZ team.

Made perfect sense right up until here.

 

[Matiunz]

The Perth bids entrance fee. Is that something being expected for all of the bids or if we are to believe some of the reasoning around not being a traditional market. That it is just for Perth?

I would be surprised if the NZ bids could pay that amount. I'd guess that would be the top end of the funds they could manage.

From what I’ve heard/understand all bids were asked about an entrance fee but it’s sorta like buying into a business.
What I believe is taken into consideration is what are the new teams bringing into the comp from a financial pov and financial security. Existing clubs are essentially being asked to further split their slice of the pie so the new clubs have to be seen as bringing something to the table and not being a drain on resources.
Dolphins are held up as not paying an entrance fee but apparently had to put up their highly successful leagues club as security, PNG has the Aus government backing, NZ have sky money and both have huge potential in increasing the player base.
WA on the other are attempting to break into a crowded well established sporting market with an unknown appetite for league. Whilst they have the next best Aus club scene outside of NSW/QLD they will still be a player drain rather than contributer.
Although there is a battle between AFL and NRL,AFL have shown the danger of ‘dots on the map’ expansion. GWS has been ‘ok’ on the field but have dismal support and have failed to capture the imagination of the public, GC Suns is in a much worse state - both are significant financial drain and now they are bringing in Tasmania which will likely be more of the same

 

[Noitall]

From what I’ve heard/understand all bids were asked about an entrance fee but it’s sorta like buying into a business.
What I believe is taken into consideration is what are the new teams bringing into the comp from a financial pov and financial security. Existing clubs are essentially being asked to further split their slice of the pie so the new clubs have to be seen as bringing something to the table and not being a drain on resources.
Dolphins are held up as not paying an entrance fee but apparently had to put up their highly successful leagues club as security, PNG has the Aus government backing, NZ have sky money and both have huge potential in increasing the player base.
WA on the other are attempting to break into a crowded well established sporting market with an unknown appetite for league. Whilst they have the next best Aus club scene outside of NSW/QLD they will still be a player drain rather than contributer.
Although there is a battle between AFL and NRL,AFL have shown the danger of ‘dots on the map’ expansion. GWS has been ‘ok’ on the field but have dismal support and have failed to capture the imagination of the public, GC Suns is in a much worse state - both are significant financial drain and now they are bringing in Tasmania which will likely be more of the same

With the nrl apparently set to raid Australian rugby union, makes you wonder whether the nrl could see the same potential in NZ to entice future stars into the nrl through another NZ team in the near future? Or are political reasonings going to see a PNG team prioritised?

 

[Matiunz]

With the nrl apparently set to raid Australian rugby union, makes you wonder whether the nrl could see the same potential in NZ to entice future stars into the nrl through another NZ team in the near future? Or are political reasonings going to see a PNG team prioritised?

ARU talked a big game but pretty much got Joey Sualii and that’s about it. They’re hosting the RWC in ‘27 so might try and pull a repeat of Rodger’s/Sailor/Tuqiri to get publicity.
PNG is political 100%, if it works though at least they have the potential to tap into a sizeable player base

 

[Tohu’s_Knees]

Made perfect sense right up until here.

What didn’t make sense? The “95%”?
Ok………
The majority.
A good portion.
More kiwis in it than the Perth team will have players from WA…….

For like the third time now…….
Christchurch is arguably the best Rugby Union nursery, not just in NZ……….
THE WORLD…….. Period.
(I say that as a born, bred and proud Waikato man btw)

Why wouldn’t the NRL want to expand there.
The only thing is financial. Hopefully a new SKY TV deal can carry favour with the NRL.

 

[MrFrankWhite]

What didn’t make sense? The “95%”?
Ok………
The majority.
A good portion.
More kiwis in it than the Perth team will have players from WA…….

For like the third time now…….
Christchurch is arguably the best Rugby Union nursery, not just in NZ……….
THE WORLD…….. Period.
(I say that as a born, bred and proud Waikato man btw)

Why wouldn’t the NRL want to expand there.
The only thing is financial. Hopefully a new SKY TV deal can carry favour with the NRL.

More people want to live in Perth than Christchurch. Christchurch is a fucking shithole and I’ve lived there. Rather live in Mt Druitt.

 

[hornbybrown]

Just seen on Twitter a link to an article in the Sydney morning herald saying the NRL have officially rejected 8 expansion bids. Didn’t know there were that many bids.
Can’t read the article to see what bids have been rejected. Anyone know anything about this?

 

[hornbybrown]

Just seen on Twitter a link to an article in the Sydney morning herald saying the NRL have officially rejected 8 expansion bids. Didn’t know there were that many bids.
Can’t read the article to see what bids have been rejected. Anyone know anything about this?

Just seen someone say it’s both South Island bids rejected due to poor business cases

 

[Noitall]

Just seen someone say it’s both South Island bids rejected due to poor business cases

Does Wellington have a bid?

 

[hornbybrown]

Does Wellington have a bid?

Not that I’m aware of. This isn’t the end of the road for the 8 rejected bids. It’s a go back to the drawing board and come up with a better plan

 

[Bay39er]

The dream of a second NRL team in New Zealand could be over.

The Weekend Herald understands the NRL has called a halt on its expansion plans, with a confidential letter sent to all existing bid projects on Thursday. The proposed Papua New Guinea team is still likely to go ahead – possibly in 2028 – but plans to bring in two more clubs – and lift the NRL to a 20-strong competition – have been put on ice.

In a statement to the Herald, the NRL said: ”At this stage, the bids submitted have not met the necessary threshold to be accepted.”

There had been genuine hopes that a Christchurch franchise could feature alongside the Warriors as an expansion team in the future, given the ongoing popularity of the sport, the amount of elite talent produced from this country, the size of the market and the new Te Kaha stadium, which is set to open in 2026.

That led to two rival bids – the South Island NRL Team bid and the South Island Kea, who had both garnered significant corporate and community support and made considerable progress. The first bid – with ex-Kiwis and Warriors coach Frank Endacott as its president – was the frontrunner but they both appear to have reached the end of the road – at least for now.

Full details of the communication between the NRL and the various franchises this week are not available, with the NRL instructing all parties not to speak with media. But the Weekend Herald can confirm the presence of the letter, which arrived as a blow to the local consortiums.

According to several sources, the key points made in the letter and subsequent communications were:

The NRL is pausing any expansion planning at this stage (aside from Papua New Guinea).
The door is not completely shut.
There has been pressure from existing NRL clubs, who are concerned about dilution of the talent base and the effect on the overall share of broadcast revenue.
The NRL will reconsider its approach and criteria for expansion, with some support for a community-based model.
The NRL also wants to focus on strategies for growing the game and building numbers, not just on professional football.
The NRL had previously stated objectives to achieve a 20-team competition, split into two conferences, at some point during the next five-year broadcast deal, which will begin in 2027.

It’s understood that scenario could still be on the table but there are concerns about the overall business cases of each prospective bid, which has led to the re-evaluation.

The timing of the communication is curious, given the Kiwis and Kangaroos will play at a sold-out stadium in Christchurch on Sunday (6pm), part of a double-header with the Kiwi Ferns and Jillaroos. That’s off the back of consecutive Warriors’ sellouts in the Garden City, which illustrated the appetite for the game there.

Market research commissioned by both Christchurch bids shown that the popularity of the NRL has doubled in the South Island since 2022, mostly off the back of the Warriors’ resurgence. The success of the Kiwis and Kiwi Ferns in 2023 was also a contributing factor, while Christchurch and Dunedin would offer the only covered stadiums in the NRL.

Expansion has been a hot topic for years. After being granted a licence in 2021, The Dolphins became the 17th team last season and their introduction has been a huge success, especially with broadcast, revenue and attendance metrics, with the huge Brisbane market.

Papua New Guinea offer huge strategic importance, with the Australian government backing worth A$600 million over 10 years, including an A$60m licence fee. But that bid comes with significant logistical challenges and potential difficulties with attracting Australian or New Zealand players, though the long-term goal would be a team based on domestic talent. The Weekend Herald has been told the PNG bid was assessed as a “higher risk profile” compared with most of the others in an independent analysis commissioned by the NRL.

A Wellington bid was also on the table for a period, though that lagged behind the Christchurch bids on most metrics. A Perth bid had been favoured – with Western Australia seen as a key future market, with their stadia, large population and favourable time zone (from a broadcasters’ perspective).

But there are concerns about the lack of a local player base, a contributing factor in the demise of the Western Reds in the late 1990s. Their bid was supported by the North Sydney Bears, who are trying to revive their brand. A bid for a third Brisbane team has influential backers, given the size of the market in Queensland and the success of the Dolphins, off the back of the Broncos’ massive presence.

The NRL’s statement said expansion was “an exciting priority for the game”.

The commission have made it clear that any expansion must have a strong business case that delivers value for all stakeholders,” the statement said.

”We are working on the right plan and model for every region. New Zealand, Western Australia, Queensland and PNG are strategic, vibrant and growing rugby league regions.

”We continue to work to strengthen the case for any potential expansion.”

 

[snake77]

It's a shame but to be honest not surprising.

The Endacott bid there wasn't much known about it. The other one had some experienced sports administrators attached to it so you'd expect them to have the business side locked in.

I would have thought financing would have been more of a concern. We have seen it is harder enough getting the funds when the Warriors come up for sale or to fund the club in general. The NRL Grant does cover a bulk of the operations but having the age group sides and the extra travel etc is a lot.

League being popular in Christchurch at the moment is one thing. Sustaining support is another thing. That comes from winning.

I have moved to favouring a South Island side playing out of Christchurch and Dunedin over Wellington. Both of the South Island cities have new stadiums built for football codes. Christchurch although it is still rebuilding after the earthquakes is probably more appealing to all of the issues being reported on in Wellington at the moment.

A second Auckland franchise gets brought up occasionally. I can see part of the argument for this. But I would be concerned on the amount of people they are expecting to attend both clubs or don't support the Warriors. I still think another city would be better.

 

[MrFrankWhite]

League being popular in Christchurch at the moment is one thing. Sustaining support is another thing. That comes from winning.

You also need the population. Chch = Tasmania. And Tas is only just getting its AFL team in 2028 in an AFL mad country of 26mil.

 

[Worried2Death]

You also need the population. Chch = Tasmania. And Tas is only just getting its AFL team in 2028 in an AFL mad country of 26mil.

Canterbury population half a million, SI total 1.2 million. What's the pop of Cronulla/Sutherland shire or Canterbury Bankstown for comparison?

 

[hornbybrown]

You also need the population. Chch = Tasmania. And Tas is only just getting its AFL team in 2028 in an AFL mad country of 26mil.

A South Island team bassed in Christchurch would get season ticket holders willing to travel from as far as Dunedin, the West Coast and points in between.
It can definitely work, but the right person needs to be in charge and both the recently rejected bids looked clumsy from the outside