Johns: $12m salary cap in a bid to reduce NRL to 12-teams

NRL and other Australian Rugby League Discussion
User avatar
steve-o
Member
Member
Posts: 1927
Joined: Tue 14 Sep, 2010 4:27 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Re: Johns: $12m salary cap in a bid to reduce NRL to 12-teams

Post by steve-o » Mon 03 Sep, 2018 10:07 pm

The obvious merger for mine is Roosters and Manly... two clubs that historically have been strong on the field, and yet still have very small fan bases. They can play the out of Sydney teams at Brookvale and the Sydney derbies at Allianz.

During the post super league scramble, the Sharks should’ve merger with Illawarra, and the Dragons with Souths. With Cronulla now sandwiched between the two halves of the Dragons, I think the Sharks are a suitable choice for relocation.
Year of last finals appearance:
2018 - Roosters, Storm, Rabbitohs, Sharks, Panthers, Broncos, Dragons, Warriors
2017 - Eels, Sea Eagles, Cowboys
2016 - Raiders, Bulldogs, Titans
2013 - Knights
2011 - Tigers


Russell
Member
Member
Posts: 5080
Joined: Sat 10 Dec, 2011 6:46 pm

Post by Russell » Mon 03 Sep, 2018 10:11 pm

Rorters and Souffs for mine - smallest areas.

They deserve each other!

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 6045
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Mon 03 Sep, 2018 10:18 pm

Tigerdon wrote:
Mon 03 Sep, 2018 8:27 pm
That would be a quick way to destroy League in Sydney.
League in Sydney is tribal. It's about smashing other Sydney teams. It's built on hating teams like Manly, the Bulldogs, Parra, Souths, Easts ect. League in Qld is about hating NSW.
Big spending teams like the Roosters don't get the fans. What do you think fans will do if you cut their team? Go and support the team that remains in Sydney? Or tune into other codes?
I agree.

Rugby League is on a knife's edge in terms of staying level with AFL and staying on top of union and soccer. Perhaps you can merge clubs in Sydney and keep the fans, or perhaps they turn away in droves.

Would Tigers or Dragons fans cop another merger, after already going through the first one and finally developing a new club culture?

Can Dogs and Eels fans ever really join together?

You need to grow the product in other areas IMO, not freak out about the number of teams in Sydney. Brisbane must have a second side, and I'm all for a Perth team, but the players need ultimately to come from Perth, be sourced in and grow the game in WA. If you look at the Sydney Swans as an example, it takes 20-30 years for such a new market to mature and start producing its own players.

Lastly, AFL has 10 Victorian clubs (9 in Melbourne) and is doing just fine. They don't merge those clubs for the same reason the NRL doesn't want to merge the Sydney clubs - and as donny says - tribalism in the code's largest market.

You then potentially get a counter-issue - how could regional sides hope to compete with a 4-team Sydney comp? This isn't like the US where a huge population is liberally spread around the country. Sydney has 5 million people; some of these proposed locations have a catchment of only a couple of hundred thousand people.

User avatar
Tigerdave
Member
Member
Posts: 11060
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 6:04 am
Location: Lismore

Post by Tigerdave » Mon 03 Sep, 2018 11:03 pm

So, even if magically they reduced Sydney teams down to 2, that's 9 teams still with 3 spots to fill...........not a huge amount of room for expansion. A 2nd Brissie side, Central Queensland, Central Coast NSW, Adelaide, Perth, PNG a 2nd Kiwi side have all been talked about at various stages, that's back up to 16 teams, what now Joey?

User avatar
sheer64
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sun 23 Sep, 2012 2:06 pm

Post by sheer64 » Mon 03 Sep, 2018 11:51 pm

Go back to whitening your teeth. Fool!
Arise Sir Waste Anasta, Tool of the highest order!


happy tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 40842
Joined: Sun 27 Feb, 2011 4:49 pm

Post by happy tiger » Tue 04 Sep, 2018 4:26 am

Look to be honest two sides in Sydney have to go long term , whether it is amalgamation , relocation or dying by natural causes it has to happen

User avatar
Cairnstigers
Member
Member
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed 07 Feb, 2018 10:00 pm

Post by Cairnstigers » Tue 04 Sep, 2018 7:04 am

Russell wrote:
Mon 03 Sep, 2018 10:04 pm
If he wants a 12 team competition:

Get rid of Brisbane, Melbourne, North QLD and Warriors.....Easy

Then Newcastle and Canberra - down to 10 ... no worries Joey.

Then you could bring back Bears and Newtown and start again.
A big ✔

happy tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 40842
Joined: Sun 27 Feb, 2011 4:49 pm

Post by happy tiger » Tue 04 Sep, 2018 11:12 am

Cairnstigers wrote:
Tue 04 Sep, 2018 7:04 am
Russell wrote:
Mon 03 Sep, 2018 10:04 pm
If he wants a 12 team competition:

Get rid of Brisbane, Melbourne, North QLD and Warriors.....Easy

Then Newcastle and Canberra - down to 10 ... no worries Joey.

Then you could bring back Bears and Newtown and start again.
A big ✔
It was called Super League

Almost tore the game apart

We need to look at what the AFL have done , they have made their competition a truly national comp , moved two sides that have become success stories

Russell
Member
Member
Posts: 5080
Joined: Sat 10 Dec, 2011 6:46 pm

Post by Russell » Tue 04 Sep, 2018 11:17 am

happy tiger wrote:
Tue 04 Sep, 2018 11:12 am
Cairnstigers wrote:
Tue 04 Sep, 2018 7:04 am
Russell wrote:
Mon 03 Sep, 2018 10:04 pm
If he wants a 12 team competition:

Get rid of Brisbane, Melbourne, North QLD and Warriors.....Easy

Then Newcastle and Canberra - down to 10 ... no worries Joey.

Then you could bring back Bears and Newtown and start again.
A big ✔
It was called Super League

Almost tore the game apart

We need to look at what the AFL have done , they have made their competition a truly national comp , moved two sides that have become success stories
What was called Super League?

Not what I said.

happy tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 40842
Joined: Sun 27 Feb, 2011 4:49 pm

Post by happy tiger » Tue 04 Sep, 2018 11:48 am

Russell wrote:
Tue 04 Sep, 2018 11:17 am
happy tiger wrote:
Tue 04 Sep, 2018 11:12 am
Cairnstigers wrote:
Tue 04 Sep, 2018 7:04 am
Russell wrote:
Mon 03 Sep, 2018 10:04 pm
If he wants a 12 team competition:

Get rid of Brisbane, Melbourne, North QLD and Warriors.....Easy

Then Newcastle and Canberra - down to 10 ... no worries Joey.

Then you could bring back Bears and Newtown and start again.
A big ✔
It was called Super League

Almost tore the game apart

We need to look at what the AFL have done , they have made their competition a truly national comp , moved two sides that have become success stories
What was called Super League?

Not what I said.
What you suggested of the clubs you removed was basically Super League less Newcastle

There is no reason that relocating two clubs won't work long term , the NRL just needs to be prepared to back it long term , get the clubs through a generation as the AFL did with the Swans and Lions and the supporters will follow ......if you keep the traditions of the clubs and play games every few weeks at their real home fans will stick true especially if success follows

Fade To Black
Member
Member
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 5:51 pm

Post by Fade To Black » Tue 04 Sep, 2018 11:54 am

happy tiger wrote:
Tue 04 Sep, 2018 11:12 am
Cairnstigers wrote:
Tue 04 Sep, 2018 7:04 am
Russell wrote:
Mon 03 Sep, 2018 10:04 pm
If he wants a 12 team competition:

Get rid of Brisbane, Melbourne, North QLD and Warriors.....Easy

Then Newcastle and Canberra - down to 10 ... no worries Joey.

Then you could bring back Bears and Newtown and start again.
A big ✔
It was called Super League

Almost tore the game apart

We need to look at what the AFL have done , they have made their competition a truly national comp , moved two sides that have become success stories
Which 2 clubs have the AFL moved? The old VFL moved South Melbourne to Sydney. They were a basket case of a club for many years, had a glimmer of success in the mid-80's when their billionaire owner splashed out on players, facilities and an image makeover, then they proceeded to go back to being crap again until the AFL tipped endless amounts of money into them (still do) and gave them massive concessions that allowed them to stockpile talent for the last 25 or so years. Monumental leg-up by the AFL allowed the Swans to be successful.
Fitzroy merged with Brisbane Bears, had a golden run in the early 2000's but have gone back to being easybeats yet again. The AFL aren't as successful at being a competitive national comp as they like to make out they are. There are still a handful of clubs on life-support surviving on bucket loads of AFL funding to prop up their rotting carcasses.

bathursttiger
Member
Member
Posts: 2777
Joined: Thu 02 Dec, 2010 5:21 pm

Post by bathursttiger » Tue 04 Sep, 2018 12:26 pm

sheer64 wrote:
Mon 03 Sep, 2018 11:51 pm
Go back to whitening your teeth. Fool!
Their not his teeth. go check an old photo of him.

Tarl
Member
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue 20 Mar, 2018 1:21 pm

Post by Tarl » Tue 04 Sep, 2018 12:34 pm

16 teams is the perfect number for the NRL. Any more it starts to get unwieldy. Any less, you isolate fans.

Consensus is we need another Brisbane team. Thus something has to give.

Solution: First, relocate Sharks to Perth. This reduces the Sydney teams, promotes the game nationally and reunites the STG/Illawarra team's traditional bases. Money will flow in for the Perth Sharks. But we're still left with 16 teams...

Second, merge Manly/Roosters (like Steve-o suggested) or merge Manly/Newcastle (and call it a Central Coast team).

This allows an extra team in Brisbane, expansion to Perth and reduces teams in Sydney. Ticks all the boxes!

StG/I and Wests have done their bit by previous merges so should be left alone. Eels, Souths and Dogs have large fan bases. Makes sense that the team/s to merge would be Manly and either roosters or Newcastle...

gallagher
Member
Member
Posts: 5542
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 1:18 pm

Post by gallagher » Tue 04 Sep, 2018 1:00 pm

Would people in an expansion area get behind a failed Sydney team relocating? I couldn't see myself going out to watch the sharks in Perth regularly.

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 6045
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Tue 04 Sep, 2018 1:19 pm

happy tiger wrote:
Tue 04 Sep, 2018 11:12 am
We need to look at what the AFL have done , they have made their competition a truly national comp , moved two sides that have become success stories
Do you really believe that? I'm going to put forward a bit of an argument here, because this is one of my personal research interests.

AFL is not a truly national comp IMO - that is their own propaganda narrative. They have just one regularly successful NE team (Swans) and 3 financially propped-up teams. All the new sides get large salary cap concessions for many years after inception and AFL props up operations with large investments. AFL have zero impact in non-Australian regional markets like PNG, Pacific, NZ.

In terms of relocating side, both teams that moved were insolvent. It would be like saying NRL moved the Steelers and Balmain - there was no choice. Fitzroy had to merge with Brisbane Bears or fold. South Melbourne tried not to move, even so far as for the board to be overtaken by the anti-move contingent, however the board didn't have veto rights; the players went on strike and the board was forced to accept a VFL loan to stay afloat, which sealed the move to Sydney.

Since Gold Coast were introduced, the ladder finishes:
Brisbane - 3rd last, spoon, 2nd last, 2nd last, 4th last, 12th, 13th, 4th last (no finals)
Gold Coast - 2nd last, 2nd last, 4th last, 3rd last, 12th, 14th, 2nd last, 2nd last (no finals)
Giants - 7th, 4th, 4th, 11th, 3rd last, spoon, spoon (3 finals)

There has not been any AFL side ex-Victoria that has been anywhere near as successful as the Melbourne Storm. In the past 10 seasons, of the 20 Grand Final spots available, only 6 have been filled by non-Victorian sides: Sydney (1 win, 2 RU), Fremantle (1 RU), West Coast (1 RU), Crows (1 RU). And the last 3 are AFL strongholds already.

Swans made the finals twice in their first 14 seasons, collecting 3 wooden spoons. And this was from a relocated club, not a brand new one. Since then, yes they make the finals most seasons and have won it twice. In a city of 5 million people. Melbourne Storm have only ever missed the finals 3 times in 21 seasons, one being 2010 when they were docked points for salary cap. They have 3 official premierships and 2 stripped.

AFL has retained 10 Victorian sides, 9 based in Melbourne - equivalent to Rugby League, but with a smaller population (by about half a million estimated).

AFL has 4 other non-Victorian sides, which were introduced into locations that already had high native AFL support.

So in those terms, I don't personally believe AFL has done anything ground-breaking, dramatic or dynamic. They opened up the VFL initially into 4 regions - WA and SA which already had strong local AFL comps, Sydney and Brisbane.

In terms of profit, the new clubs almost all run at a loss. Not to say that NRL clubs are profitable, but that AFL clubs are similarly under-performing businesses:
Brisbane - have not made an operating profit since 2007.
Swans - make operating profits in the vicinity of 50-800K per season - and that is including a membership base of almost 60K people, with average crowds of 33.3K.
Gold Coast - have spent $100M in 7 seasons of funding from the AFL, not including the $10M that the AFL tipped into their stadium. Have not made a profit and lost $3M in 2016.
Giants - lost $522K in 2017. AFL has made a similar investment of $100M in setting up the club, which also received $72M in public funding to upgrade their Blacktown and then Showground home grounds after AFL lobbying.

So what have the AFL really done? Opened a few new clubs in AFL heartlands - it would be like claiming responsibility for the success of the Broncos. They've also poured several hundred million into new clubs in NSW and QLD, 1 of which eventually worked, 1 of which is doing ok, 2 of which (QLD) are struggling. If NRL was to similarly tip several hundred million into a few regional expeditions, we might similarly see middle-level success in 10-20 years.

In basic terms, what the AFL have over league is that their memberships, gate receipts and advertising revenue are all superior to NRL. NRL has been pushing the member concept for about 10 years, about 4 decades behind the AFL. AFL jagged their first big TV revenue deal the cycle before NRL, so got their hands on the biggest monies several years earlier.

AFL have been smart enough to invest this money heavily in grassroots, and this is where I believe the NRL is furthest behind - we haven't made much in-road into junior footy in potential growth markets like Victoria or WA. Touch football is in rude health and now under the umbrella of the NRL, but actually turning young kids into strong junior footballers is still a struggle outside of NSW, QLD and ACT.

NRL also has a physical challenge to contend with, because AFL is generally seen by parents as being less contact and therefore less dangerous that NRL. Whether or not this has a long-term impact remains to be seen, because both AFL and NRL participation rates are dwarfed by primarily non-contact sports like competitive basketball, soccer, cricket, golf and tennis. In fact in 2016 the Top 5 participation sports in Australia are primarily non-contact (soccer, golf, tennis, bball, cricket: http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7182- ... 1703200905), and mostly not sports we are world powerhouses in, so participation does not necessarily mean elite-level excellence. Top junior participation sports are still ones like swimming, soccer, cycling, athletics, dancing, netball etc. AFL in 2014 polled 11th and league 13th (http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6123- ... 1503182151)

Fade To Black
Member
Member
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 5:51 pm

Post by Fade To Black » Tue 04 Sep, 2018 1:32 pm

gallagher wrote:
Tue 04 Sep, 2018 1:00 pm
Would people in an expansion area get behind a failed Sydney team relocating? I couldn't see myself going out to watch the sharks in Perth regularly.
I'd go and watch them if they moved here (they have been a great entertaining team to watch in the last half-decade or so) but obviously wouldn't support them.

Fade To Black
Member
Member
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 5:51 pm

Post by Fade To Black » Tue 04 Sep, 2018 1:40 pm

bathursttiger wrote:
Tue 04 Sep, 2018 12:26 pm
sheer64 wrote:
Mon 03 Sep, 2018 11:51 pm
Go back to whitening your teeth. Fool!
Their not his teeth. go check an old photo of him.
Him and Ted must've got the 2-for-1 special.
Teddy's ones are classic :righton: .....when he talks his whole mouth doesn't even move. Definitely a budding ventriloquist.

Silentio
Member
Member
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon 01 Jun, 2015 1:21 pm

Post by Silentio » Tue 04 Sep, 2018 1:42 pm

What a hare-brained idea. Rugby league needs to grow to survive.

Less games to sell to the tv networks means lower revenue.

Unless the sport does something creative, the next tv rights deal will be a bloodbath for rugby league. Channel 9 and Fox are the walking dead of the media.

If anything, stick another team in Brisbane and end the Broncos monopoly.

And expand origin to include NZ, Samoa and Tonga. This is one big edge we have over AFL.

Post Reply