Your Opinion on were Two New Teams Should Be Based In the NRL

NRL and other Australian Rugby League Discussion
Tcat
Member
Member
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed 08 Aug, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Your Opinion on were Two New Teams Should Be Based In the NRL

Post by Tcat » Fri 07 Sep, 2018 2:40 pm

I'd love to see a country NSW team brought into the comp. League in the country sounds like it needs a boost. I'm not sure of all the legalities such as stadium sizes and so forth, but I reakon many would get on board. There is plenty of great country clubs that would put their hand up as a potential feeder club and players would live there. It could be based in a number of places e.g. Bathurst, Orange, maybe a raiders v the country team in good old Wagga to stick it up AFL.


User avatar
prattenparkchild
Member
Member
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun 07 May, 2017 1:10 pm

Post by prattenparkchild » Fri 07 Sep, 2018 3:14 pm

Perth, 2nd Brisbane- both only created by relocating sydney teams using new refreshed names.

I'd also look to creating 20 teams, a premier tier of 10 and comp tier of the other 10. With promotion and relegation. Also a cooperative player draft with clubs and players.

There are a lot of issues within the competition and we are getting bugger all leadership and vision from the NRL.

goldcoast tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: Sat 12 Apr, 2014 5:42 pm

Post by goldcoast tiger » Fri 07 Sep, 2018 4:02 pm

Brisbane ,and Perth ,
later Ipswich

User avatar
Harvey
Member
Member
Posts: 3823
Joined: Mon 22 Jun, 2015 10:01 pm
Location: Leumeah

Post by Harvey » Fri 07 Sep, 2018 4:05 pm

2nd team in Brisbane, then Perth.

Force the dogs to relocate.

Next up China #growthegame

User avatar
2041
Member
Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Fri 14 Jan, 2011 12:32 pm

Post by 2041 » Fri 07 Sep, 2018 4:15 pm

cqtiger wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 11:59 am
All I will say is that a Central Queensland team will NOT work. I live in Rockhampton where the CQ Capras are based and Rocky is a little country town compared to Townsville.

My question is, how do you get a 20 team competition to work fairly? The current 16 team draw is ridiculous.
I quite liked the idea someone had of splitting the comp into two conferences. You play your own conference twice and the other one once and do something like giving the top three in each conference finals berths plus two wild cards - could be one each, could be two from the same conference if they've performed very strongly.

This would work ok with an 18 team comp - it would mean a 25-match season. Going to 20 would be tough as it would mean 28 games.

Conferences could be roughly Sydney and the rest, so:

Foundation conference
Bulldogs
Sharks
Manly
Eels
Panthers
Souths
Dragons
Roosters
Tigers

Evolution conference
Broncos
Raiders
Titans
Storm
Knights
Cowboys
Warriors
[Perth team]
[Second Brisbane team]

It wouldn't have to be this way - you could divide it up so the long trips are shared round better with Perth and NZ separated, for instance. It's not like league has that many massive rivalries you'd need to keep together. Also the wild card idea, while it might be fairer to teams that are good but stuck in a particularly strong conference, wouldn't allow you to have 'conference champions' in the way just taking the top four from each would.

Obviously plenty of things to nut out but personally I feel like it has some legs.


User avatar
Harvey
Member
Member
Posts: 3823
Joined: Mon 22 Jun, 2015 10:01 pm
Location: Leumeah

Post by Harvey » Fri 07 Sep, 2018 4:22 pm

I would prefer the 2 conferences to be:
Clubs getting by
Obvious (yet undetected) salary cap cheats

User avatar
mike
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 1764
Joined: Mon 28 Jun, 2010 8:32 pm
Location: Hornsby

Post by mike » Fri 07 Sep, 2018 5:58 pm

prattenparkchild wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 3:14 pm
Perth, 2nd Brisbane- both only created by relocating sydney teams using new refreshed names.

I'd also look to creating 20 teams, a premier tier of 10 and comp tier of the other 10. With promotion and relegation. Also a cooperative player draft with clubs and players.

There are a lot of issues within the competition and we are getting bugger all leadership and vision from the NRL.
Not bad. Sydney and Greater Sydney in one Comp and the rest in another. No wait that sounds too much like SuperLeague.
Western Suburbs supporter since 1960 | Balmain junior since 1967 | Wests Tigers supporter since 1999

Needaname
Member
Member
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun 24 Apr, 2016 1:02 pm

Post by Needaname » Fri 07 Sep, 2018 6:46 pm

Tcat wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 2:40 pm
I'd love to see a country NSW team brought into the comp. League in the country sounds like it needs a boost. I'm not sure of all the legalities such as stadium sizes and so forth, but I reakon many would get on board. There is plenty of great country clubs that would put their hand up as a potential feeder club and players would live there. It could be based in a number of places e.g. Bathurst, Orange, maybe a raiders v the country team in good old Wagga to stick it up AFL.
Do you mean where?

User avatar
steve-o
Member
Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue 14 Sep, 2010 4:27 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by steve-o » Fri 07 Sep, 2018 8:27 pm

gallagher wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 1:30 pm
Bozo97 wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 1:19 pm
steve-o wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 1:13 pm
Perth and Adelaide for me. Another Brisbane team would not expand the game, NZ doesn’t need another team considering the record of the Warriors, and PNG would struggle to attract players.
x2
Perth is the obvious one and I'm not against Adelaide and making it a national game. But I'm not sure we have the leaders to be aggressive in expansion.
Another Brisbane team would dilute the Broncos advantages.
I agree that we don’t have the leaders to expand successfully. I don’t even think expansion is on the agenda, despite NRL head office saying it is. The current set of clubs have way too much influence on the game - they robbed the NRL during the last negotiations, and now I don’t think the NRL has the required funds needed to invest in the expanded areas.

In regards to Brisbane... adding a team just to dilute the power of the Broncos is a ridiculous reason for expansion. Don’t get me wrong I hate the Broncos and the advantages they have, but we should be finding ways to get other clubs on the same level as them off the field, and change policies that are giving them advantages - for example more transparency on player salaries/TPAs, fairer schedules, relocation or merger of Sydney teams etc
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

maxxy86
Member
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: Fri 04 Mar, 2011 11:54 am

Post by maxxy86 » Fri 07 Sep, 2018 8:59 pm

happy tiger wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 12:02 pm
cqtiger wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 11:59 am
All I will say is that a Central Queensland team will NOT work. I live in Rockhampton where the CQ Capras are based and Rocky is a little country town compared to Townsville.

My question is, how do you get a 20 team competition to work fairly? The current 16 team draw is ridiculous.
Totally agree CQ ,

Ipswich and a second South Island NZ team

People from Ipswich hate Brisbanites and vice versa
Hang on happy Ipswich IS a Nz area anyways......haven’t you seen Redbank Plains of late??
Well its nearly time to have a 'CRACK'....Go you :sign:

gallagher
Member
Member
Posts: 5716
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 1:18 pm

Post by gallagher » Fri 07 Sep, 2018 9:16 pm

steve-o wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 8:27 pm
gallagher wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 1:30 pm
Bozo97 wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 1:19 pm
steve-o wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 1:13 pm
Perth and Adelaide for me. Another Brisbane team would not expand the game, NZ doesn’t need another team considering the record of the Warriors, and PNG would struggle to attract players.
x2
Perth is the obvious one and I'm not against Adelaide and making it a national game. But I'm not sure we have the leaders to be aggressive in expansion.
Another Brisbane team would dilute the Broncos advantages.
I agree that we don’t have the leaders to expand successfully. I don’t even think expansion is on the agenda, despite NRL head office saying it is. The current set of clubs have way too much influence on the game - they robbed the NRL during the last negotiations, and now I don’t think the NRL has the required funds needed to invest in the expanded areas.

In regards to Brisbane... adding a team just to dilute the power of the Broncos is a ridiculous reason for expansion. Don’t get me wrong I hate the Broncos and the advantages they have, but we should be finding ways to get other clubs on the same level as them off the field, and change policies that are giving them advantages - for example more transparency on player salaries/TPAs, fairer schedules, relocation or merger of Sydney teams etc
Bringing in another team had many upsides. Diluting the Broncos advantage is just one. How would clubs ever get on their level when they have a 2.4m population all to themselves?

User avatar
steve-o
Member
Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue 14 Sep, 2010 4:27 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by steve-o » Fri 07 Sep, 2018 10:09 pm

Other clubs will never have populations as big, but they should still be striving to grow their brands and membership bases. They can do this by investing in areas outside their traditional bases. In terms of Sydney, 9 clubs is too many. The whole point of expansion is to expand the game... bring in new fans. A second Brisbane team would simply cannibalise the broncos and non-bronco Brisbane based supporters. The NRL’s long term plan should be to have a competition where every club is seen as a “powerhouse” in their own right.... as opposed to bringing other clubs down to the level of the lowest common denominators.
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

happy tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 41557
Joined: Sun 27 Feb, 2011 4:49 pm
Location: Watching Waiting Lurking

Post by happy tiger » Fri 07 Sep, 2018 11:44 pm

gallagher wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 9:16 pm
steve-o wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 8:27 pm
gallagher wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 1:30 pm
Bozo97 wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 1:19 pm


x2
Perth is the obvious one and I'm not against Adelaide and making it a national game. But I'm not sure we have the leaders to be aggressive in expansion.
Another Brisbane team would dilute the Broncos advantages.
I agree that we don’t have the leaders to expand successfully. I don’t even think expansion is on the agenda, despite NRL head office saying it is. The current set of clubs have way too much influence on the game - they robbed the NRL during the last negotiations, and now I don’t think the NRL has the required funds needed to invest in the expanded areas.

In regards to Brisbane... adding a team just to dilute the power of the Broncos is a ridiculous reason for expansion. Don’t get me wrong I hate the Broncos and the advantages they have, but we should be finding ways to get other clubs on the same level as them off the field, and change policies that are giving them advantages - for example more transparency on player salaries/TPAs, fairer schedules, relocation or merger of Sydney teams etc
Bringing in another team had many upsides. Diluting the Broncos advantage is just one. How would clubs ever get on their level when they have a 2.4m population all to themselves?
Yes I totally agree , but it would be far more effective by bringing in either an Ipswich team or a Sunshine Coast side in my opinion

I don't think taking Brisbane on would be ideal for a new club as a Brisbane side , but Ipswich will be a direct competitor and more likely to get alternative sponsorship as would the Sunny Coast

I know this is a bit hard to explain , but the second the second Brisbane side becomes decided little brother it will fail like the Crushers did

Ipswich or the Sunshine Coast get a chip on their shoulder and can use it their advantage like the Cows did

Does that make sense ??

User avatar
Tigerdave
Member
Member
Posts: 11075
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 6:04 am
Location: Lismore

Post by Tigerdave » Sat 08 Sep, 2018 4:24 am

2041 wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 4:15 pm


I quite liked the idea someone had of splitting the comp into two conferences. You play your own conference twice and the other one once and do something like giving the top three in each conference finals berths plus two wild cards - could be one each, could be two from the same conference if they've performed very strongly.

This would work ok with an 18 team comp - it would mean a 25-match season. Going to 20 would be tough as it would mean 28 games.

Conferences could be roughly Sydney and the rest, so:

Foundation conference
Bulldogs
Sharks
Manly
Eels
Panthers
Souths
Dragons
Roosters
Tigers

Evolution conference
Broncos
Raiders
Titans
Storm
Knights
Cowboys
Warriors
[Perth team]
[Second Brisbane team]

It wouldn't have to be this way - you could divide it up so the long trips are shared round better with Perth and NZ separated, for instance. It's not like league has that many massive rivalries you'd need to keep together. Also the wild card idea, while it might be fairer to teams that are good but stuck in a particularly strong conference, wouldn't allow you to have 'conference champions' in the way just taking the top four from each would.

Obviously plenty of things to nut out but personally I feel like it has some legs.
Yeah the conference idea keeps every happy. I can't see them being able to convince teams to merge or relocate at the moment, but it still may only be short term. I'd imagine the NRL would eventually want to expand again and include Central Coast, another Kiwi side, PNG and Adelaide.

User avatar
steve-o
Member
Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue 14 Sep, 2010 4:27 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by steve-o » Sat 08 Sep, 2018 5:06 am

I love the idea of a conference system. It works so well in the NFL, and I think it could work in the NRL too.
18 teams
3 conferences
Play each team in your conference twice, the other conferences once, for a total of 22 games.
Top 2 from each conference qualify for finals, plus 2 wild cards for next best records. Finals seeding based on record (so wildcard could have a higher seeding than a top 2 qualifier... NFL doesn’t do this which is flawed IMO).

2 less rounds allows origins to be stand alone, and over the same weekend you could play internationals involving NZ, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, Fiji etc.
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

User avatar
Doc Tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 2338
Joined: Sun 30 Mar, 2014 9:53 pm

Post by Doc Tiger » Sat 08 Sep, 2018 7:08 am

steve-o wrote:
Sat 08 Sep, 2018 5:06 am
I love the idea of a conference system. It works so well in the NFL, and I think it could work in the NRL too.
18 teams
3 conferences
Play each team in your conference twice, the other conferences once, for a total of 22 games.
Top 2 from each conference qualify for finals, plus 2 wild cards for next best records. Finals seeding based on record (so wildcard could have a higher seeding than a top 2 qualifier... NFL doesn’t do this which is flawed IMO).

2 less rounds allows origins to be stand alone, and over the same weekend you could play internationals involving NZ, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, Fiji etc.
We really need a like button

Tigerdon
Member
Member
Posts: 4162
Joined: Mon 07 Apr, 2014 11:07 am
Location: Manly

Post by Tigerdon » Sat 08 Sep, 2018 7:11 am

steve-o wrote:
Sat 08 Sep, 2018 5:06 am
I love the idea of a conference system. It works so well in the NFL, and I think it could work in the NRL too.
18 teams
3 conferences
Play each team in your conference twice, the other conferences once, for a total of 22 games.
Top 2 from each conference qualify for finals, plus 2 wild cards for next best records. Finals seeding based on record (so wildcard could have a higher seeding than a top 2 qualifier... NFL doesn’t do this which is flawed IMO).

2 less rounds allows origins to be stand alone, and over the same weekend you could play internationals involving NZ, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, Fiji etc.
I like the idea of this system, it would just be a matter if the dollars would be there to fund it.
It could go huge if you could really capture to Pacific nations in this as well.
So much untapped talent in the Pacific nations.
in Ivan we distrust

gallagher
Member
Member
Posts: 5716
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 1:18 pm

Post by gallagher » Sat 08 Sep, 2018 9:49 am

happy tiger wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 11:44 pm
gallagher wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 9:16 pm
steve-o wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 8:27 pm
gallagher wrote:
Fri 07 Sep, 2018 1:30 pm

Perth is the obvious one and I'm not against Adelaide and making it a national game. But I'm not sure we have the leaders to be aggressive in expansion.
Another Brisbane team would dilute the Broncos advantages.
I agree that we don’t have the leaders to expand successfully. I don’t even think expansion is on the agenda, despite NRL head office saying it is. The current set of clubs have way too much influence on the game - they robbed the NRL during the last negotiations, and now I don’t think the NRL has the required funds needed to invest in the expanded areas.

In regards to Brisbane... adding a team just to dilute the power of the Broncos is a ridiculous reason for expansion. Don’t get me wrong I hate the Broncos and the advantages they have, but we should be finding ways to get other clubs on the same level as them off the field, and change policies that are giving them advantages - for example more transparency on player salaries/TPAs, fairer schedules, relocation or merger of Sydney teams etc
Bringing in another team had many upsides. Diluting the Broncos advantage is just one. How would clubs ever get on their level when they have a 2.4m population all to themselves?
Yes I totally agree , but it would be far more effective by bringing in either an Ipswich team or a Sunshine Coast side in my opinion

I don't think taking Brisbane on would be ideal for a new club as a Brisbane side , but Ipswich will be a direct competitor and more likely to get alternative sponsorship as would the Sunny Coast

I know this is a bit hard to explain , but the second the second Brisbane side becomes decided little brother it will fail like the Crushers did

Ipswich or the Sunshine Coast get a chip on their shoulder and can use it their advantage like the Cows did

Does that make sense ??
I don't know the south east Qld region well like you soo youd have a better idea than me. But if you put in Ipswich for example would people outside that area get behind the team? Would they play out of Suncorp?

Post Reply