other than merging more sydney teams spot on the money

cant judge crushers or perth due to the SL war

both places can easily support an nrl team

cronulla sharks would be perfect, 6 games there, 6 at the swamp

spot on

other than cronulla every other sydney club deserves its place

we arent even close to potential in sydney, let alone anywhere else

i can see souths and dogs getting crowds over 30,000, and the rest of them at 15,000 - 25,000 easy.

Yep, that 23k average for Parra in 1999 was the highest ever for a Sydney team, yet 3 years before, the ARL and News wanted to kick them out or merge because their crowds were down.

I can see Parra getting their average up near the 25-30k in the next few years seeing they are starting to take their bigger games to ANZ stadium.

They'll either move there or end up increasing parra stadiums capacity.

The Tigers will end up moving to ANZ eventually, you can see it coming.

Their crowds will grow too, wouldn't be surprised to see them near 25k soon, they're at 18086 now and that's with games played at Leichhardt oval, Cambeltown and ANZ.

The only 2 teams that look in danger atm are Manly because of Brookvale oval and Cronulla because they are playing bad and not getting anything on the field to go their way, but they do have once ace in that they are the only NRL club to own their own ground.

parra could easily be the man utd of the nrl

its bang in the middle of rl heartland being sydneys west and has heaps of money and juniors

its mainly due to the last comp being in 86 as to why crowds arent over 20,000

parra stadium has to get lifted to 30,000 and the games against souths, dogs and tigers should be at homebush which would see a crowd average of 25,000

manly are safe, they have no nrl club near them they just need to push season tix more

i actually like brookie, went past it today

That's the beauty of this thread, none of it can be stated as fact. The threat of losing the SL license is what has caused the stadiums to be built, or at least the threat of clubs being replaced by Widnes, Leigh and to a lesser extent Halifax because they have managed to get some investment into their stadiums causing the slightly embarrassing position for SL where some of the championship clubs have better facilities than the SL teams.

Again, echoing your previous post about things being unlikely. Bradford were the shining example of all things good with super league, they had the marketing spot on and 'stole' fans from clubs all around West Yorkshire because of it. It seems to be unknown in SL circles but 'Bullmania' was copied from Keighley despite the then Bulls CEO denouncing it as rubbish, the only thing that stopped the Keighley charge was the RL refusing them promotion from the NFP, despite winning the title. If Keighley had Huddersfield's resources at the time (i.e. The McAlpine, or even something marginally better than Lawkholme Lane/Cougar Park) then they could be where the Giants are now. Possibly

from what ive read thats all true

But, shh, Barry could be watching. He'll get ya.

That could well be true, and it would have been excellent for Rugby League. To be honest, both could have run perfectly fine along side each other, One of the West Yorkshire Clubs, Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield, Keighley, Castleford, Hull, Hull KR.

everyone realises there are too many teams in Sydney to be long term sustainable. 9 teams in one city is too many. In years to come they will not be able to keep up with one team cities. The NSWRL understood this, the ARL understood this, the NRL understood it and the ARLIC will too. Sydneys teams have been gradually being reduced since 1983 and will continue to do so till there is probably 6 or 7 strong/merged clubs left.

and that's why they lost the war

Why?

Without the big Sydney clubs, the SL comp was stuffed, Packer and Murdoch knew this.

Okay.

typical ignorant nonsense from you

firstly AFL has a similar number of teams from victoria and they are all doing well

secondly campbelltown, gosford, penrith arent really part of sydney.

if it comes down to strong teams there are 5 sydney clubs richer than the warriors, perth, canberra, newcastle etc

seriously the less you say about sydney RL clubs the better as it takes so long correcting your many errors

SL had more money with news ltd behind them but they didnt have the tradition the arl did and in the end news ltd and the arl made peace

however the peace was much more favourable for news ltd with them getting 50% ownership of the game, cheap tv rights for years and many of their clubs surviving

for example cronulla are a useless club, no money, fans, never won the comp.

they survived but souths, gold coast, balmain, wests, norths and illawarra didnt. all these clubs were light years ahead of cronulla

news ltd is said to have lost $500 million on the SL war but its made up for it on the value of foxtel which because of the NRL rights makes millions each year

it worked out well for news ltd but the game paid a massive price

Quote ="dally messenger"typical ignorant nonsense from you firstly AFL has a similar number of teams from victoria and they are all doing well if it comes down to strong teams there are 5 sydney clubs richer than the warriors, perth, canberra, newcastle etc '" No there not, 3 are in serious financial strife and being bailed out by the AFL's "special distribution fund" or surviving by moving home games to other parts of the country. 2 clubs have already relocated to other parts of the country permanently. AFL realises it can't sustain that many teams in Melbourne, just as the ARL/NRL do in Sydney. Why do you think the relocation package was offered? Why the merging, why the removal of clubs in years gone by. bury your head in the sand as much as you like but the writing is on the wall for some clubs and the IC, expansion and improved $'s in the game will hasten that time for some. As I said I can see a time when there 6 or 7 super Sydney clubs left in the NRL, you seem to agree. www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sy ... 1115683624

Quote ="dally messenger"typical ignorant nonsense from you firstly AFL has a similar number of teams from victoria and they are all doing well if it comes down to strong teams there are 5 sydney clubs richer than the warriors, perth, canberra, newcastle etc '" No there not, 3 are in serious financial strife and being bailed out by the AFL's "special distribution fund" or surviving by moving home games to other parts of the country. 2 clubs have already relocated to other parts of the country permanently. AFL realises it can't sustain that many teams in Melbourne, just as the ARL/NRL do in Sydney. Why do you think the relocation package was offered? Why the merging, why the removal of clubs in years gone by. bury your head in the sand as much as you like but the writing is on the wall for some clubs and the IC, expansion and improved $'s in the game will hasten that time for some. As I said I can see a time when there 6 or 7 super Sydney clubs left in the NRL, you seem to agree. www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sy ... 1115683624

Quote ="JB Down Under"No there not, 3 are in serious financial strife and being bailed out by the AFL's "special distribution fund" or surviving by moving home games to other parts of the country. 2 clubs have already relocated to other parts of the country permanently. AFL realises it can't sustain that many teams in Melbourne, just as the ARL/NRL do in Sydney. Why do you think the relocation package was offered? Why the merging, why the removal of clubs in years gone by. bury your head in the sand as much as you like but the writing is on the wall for some clubs and the IC, expansion and improved $'s in the game will hasten that time for some. As I said I can see a time when there 6 or 7 super Sydney clubs left in the NRL, you seem to agree. www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sy ... 1115683624'" So JB, who's getting the chop and who will remain? Will they keep their old names/colours/emblems, or will they be completely new? If they kick clubs out, there will be a massive roar from fans, if they kick all of them out and start again, everyone in Sydney will be sed off. Then you can have your perth team and look forward to playing with yourselves every week.

Quote ="JB Down Under"No there not, 3 are in serious financial strife and being bailed out by the AFL's "special distribution fund" or surviving by moving home games to other parts of the country. 2 clubs have already relocated to other parts of the country permanently. AFL realises it can't sustain that many teams in Melbourne, just as the ARL/NRL do in Sydney. Why do you think the relocation package was offered? Why the merging, why the removal of clubs in years gone by. bury your head in the sand as much as you like but the writing is on the wall for some clubs and the IC, expansion and improved $'s in the game will hasten that time for some. As I said I can see a time when there 6 or 7 super Sydney clubs left in the NRL, you seem to agree. www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sy ... 1115683624'" So JB, who's getting the chop and who will remain? Will they keep their old names/colours/emblems, or will they be completely new? If they kick clubs out, there will be a massive roar from fans, if they kick all of them out and start again, everyone in Sydney will be sed off. Then you can have your perth team and look forward to playing with yourselves every week.

Quote ="JB Down Under"No there not, 3 are in serious financial strife and being bailed out by the AFL's "special distribution fund" or surviving by moving home games to other parts of the country. 2 clubs have already relocated to other parts of the country permanently. AFL realises it can't sustain that many teams in Melbourne, just as the ARL/NRL do in Sydney. Why do you think the relocation package was offered? Why the merging, why the removal of clubs in years gone by. bury your head in the sand as much as you like but the writing is on the wall for some clubs and the IC, expansion and improved $'s in the game will hasten that time for some. As I said I can see a time when there 6 or 7 super Sydney clubs left in the NRL, you seem to agree. www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sy ... 1115683624'" other than cronulla theres plenty of room for every other club sadly even cronulla will survive with the new tv deal meaning every club will receive million more in funding

Quote ="JB Down Under"No there not, 3 are in serious financial strife and being bailed out by the AFL's "special distribution fund" or surviving by moving home games to other parts of the country. 2 clubs have already relocated to other parts of the country permanently. AFL realises it can't sustain that many teams in Melbourne, just as the ARL/NRL do in Sydney. Why do you think the relocation package was offered? Why the merging, why the removal of clubs in years gone by. bury your head in the sand as much as you like but the writing is on the wall for some clubs and the IC, expansion and improved $'s in the game will hasten that time for some. As I said I can see a time when there 6 or 7 super Sydney clubs left in the NRL, you seem to agree. www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sy ... 1115683624'" other than cronulla theres plenty of room for every other club sadly even cronulla will survive with the new tv deal meaning every club will receive million more in funding

as ive said before jb stop bagging the sydney clubs

its because of these clubs that in 12 mths time perth will get a 2nd chance at an nrl/arl team

many sydney clubs didnt get the 2nd chance that perth are getting

look I call it as i see it, I have no interest in Sydney clubs going under, I don;t want fans to have to go through what some of us have in the past. Do I want Sydney teams to go under? Not at all, would I prefer to see an eventual 22 team league with every team on an income of $25mill and drawing crowds of 20k+, absolutely. Will it happen, probably not.

In terms of who stays and goes, the clubs themselves will decide that. Those clubs that get off the pokies and find new ways to get their incomes up to the $20mill mark will prosper, those that struggle to get 15k fans, have poor stadium deals or lack management and board leadership to bring in the corporates will not, probably.

The new TV deal isn't going to be the panacea some think for clubs. It will, at best, add $1-1.5million to clubs NRL grants. Some clubs are losing alot more than that at the moment.

the new tv deal will save them, even cronulla.

id say the maximum each club can get from the new deal is more like 4 million per club

The NRL has traditionally paid out approx 40% of its TV income in grants to clubs. In order to be paying out an extra $4mill on top of the current $3.2 mill the clubs get the Tv deal would need to be in the region of $275mill a year! Ain't going to happen.

At best clubs grants will go up to around $4.5mill a year imo (TV deal of around $180mill), that won't save clubs that are running at $2mill deficits.

clubs will be running the nrl in the future

heres what im thinking -

new tv deal in australia - 80 - 100 million pa
nz - 10 million pa
sponsorship / internet etc - 10 million
savings from IC - 20 million

so potentially 140 million extra in revenues

allowing $50 million for sundry costs like juniors and nrl running costs leaves $90 million for nrl clubs.

at 18 clubs (expansion) its up to $5 million more per club

every club is going to have more money than they can handle