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

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