just for the poor AFL fan :

1. Origin - TV viewers 10 million.
2. Crowds - 170,000 - 220,000 each year.
3. Revenues for RL 10 million.

AFL - collingwood vs essendon.

If it adds value to their subscriptions, I imagine News might be interested.

Either way, profit is not the be all and end all.



See above; do all the Sydney teams turn a comparable profit?



I'm using your population argument. It's not as simple as "place x is projected to have a lot of people", or Melbourne would be targetted for more teams.



The argument was predicated on swapping 15k fans in Cronulla to something comparable in Perth.

I'd take that, as it opens up a new market, and helps dispel the myths surrounding RL only being viable in certain constrained areas.

1. news ltd killed off perth last time, so i doubt theyd cover those losses, no.

2. sydney clubs have either Leagues Clubs or rich owners to cover the losses.

3. population applies to a RL state. more clubs are needed in a state where the sport is popular. 3 isnt enough.

4. again 15,000 in perth for 15,000 lost in cronulla isnt expansion. its canibalization. as ive said before when it happened to souths and norths the sport suffered.

5. RL in australia doesnt suffer the same as it does in england. we are probably the dominant sport of the country so if people want to say its only played in queensland and nsw, good luck to them.

since those places are more than half the population, im happy with that.

AFL is our major rival sport. it has zero international presence, and other than 3 states in australia, is insignificant or non existant every where else in the world.

i actually support a perth NRL club. but its not crucial to our success. queensland is much more important for the codes future.

we already are in a very strong position. perth would be the icing on the cake, but its not as if we need them in some stupid quest to put pins in the map as AFL does.

we need clubs where there are lots of RL fans, and where there will be even more RL fans in the future.

central coast and queensland, and also wellington, PNG are up there.

perth would be nice, and id brush adelaide all together

This is fair enough, but I don't believe profit is the be all and end all, as I've said before.



Why not move some Sydney teams there? If QLD is a haven of profit and is desperate for teams, it would make sense.



Another team in QLD is cannibalisation, by the same token. You're taking fans, or potential fans, from the other QLD franchises.

The difference is, the people in Perth don't have a local team - or even another team in that state.



There are way more people in the North-West than Bridgend. I would not suggest that Widnes are therefore incomparably the better bet vs. Celtic Crusaders.

I believe you need ambition, not to simply play a holding game. It's bizarre to see RL in Aus not using that strength to expand, and yet in Europe RL is weak and is going for it.



And yet it's still dusting the NRL for money and support. That should not be happening, and it would be less likely to maintain that situation with a team in Perth, for example.



Queensland is fine, just as Vic is fine for AFL. But the AFL were not content to simply be a power outside of NSW and QLD.

More QLD teams is a good idea, but alongside underperforming NSW clubs and to the exclusion of everywhere else?

I simply don't agree that a Perth team would somehow cannibalise support from Sydney.



That strategy has not done too badly in terms of TV money - and that's without any international component.



They're already fans.



I'm not convinced on the merits of Adelaide either.

1. true enough but with the other benefits qld teams bring, its a good start to say profits are important, or at least the ability to be strong financially.

2. moving teams when they are surviving is wrong. if they have no other option fine, but when they are doing well enough it alienates fans. should widnes be moved to liverpool for example? or worse, to london?

3. canibilization is more when you kill off one team for another. you gain some fans but lose others, probably in the same numbers. if you want genuine expansion then you need more teams.

4. yes thats true, the RFL are doing a great job and showing more b&&ls than the NRL.

5. some truth there but lots of it is due to the Super Leauge War. before that we were doing very well financially but then news ltd became owners of the game and reduced the ability to freely sell our tv deals. packer and murdoch have worked hand in hand at the cost of the game.

6. sydney RL clubs on the whole get average crowds and have OK finances (yes the pokie tax is affecting things but it appears to be stabilizing). canberra, warriors and melbourne get less fans than the sydney clubs so should they be kicked out as well.

indeed perth might struggle to average 15,000, on the criteria of having less crowds than average, they shouldnt be in as well.

7. it would if you involve kicking out a sydney team (or moving it) for a perth team. the fans of the sydney team (most) would be lost to RL.


the weakest sydney clubs were souths and cronulla and both have / are turning things around so have a future in their current environments. if the NRL wants a perth club it has to be via increasing the number of teams.

remember perth were in the arl in 1995. they turned their back on the ARL and went to news ltd. news ltd ended up killing them off when the time was right and they got the Pay TV rights they were after. so already perth has cost / damaged the game. why should more clubs have to die to give perth another chance? they stuffed up their chance before and really there are other areas which deserve an nrl team.

the way gallop has been talking, he gives perth no chance any time soon and keeps talking about west brisbane or somewhere in queensland

I don't think you're getting my point; I wouldn't be the one proposing moving Widnes to Liverpool or London, because that would presuppose that they would be more successful elsewhere. I also wouldn't be the one to neglect expansion teams like Canberra, NZ and Melbourne - I'm the one proposing that a greater emphasis is placed on non-NSW/QLD teams, including expansion into those areas

Your argument is that QLD needs more teams, and they're guaranteed to be successes there. It's the exact [iopposite[/i situation to moving Widnes to London, where you would have a relatively strong team moving from a strong RL area to one with comparably little support for the game.

Moving a relatively weak club from Sydney to an area like QLD is entirely different, the [iopposite[/i of moving Widnes to London or Liverpool.



That's not cannibalisation, IMO. Moving Cronulla to Newcastle would be cannibalisation (ignoring that they would be laughed out of town).

It's swapping a struggling club in a saturated area for an entirely new market; I don't think it's the same thing as cannibalisation.

Another QLD team is closer to cannibalisation than what I proposed.



Ideally, nobody would have to move. But if it came to the crunch, I'd take the loss of 15k in an enormous market which is already saturated with RL to gain 15k, and therefore a very solid foothold, in an expansion area like Perth.



Why did Perth have to die to give other teams a chance? If it's not fair that other teams suffer to get Perth in now, why was it fair for Perth to suffer so they could be in?

1. perth made their bed going to news ltd. that they dont have a team is their own fault.

2. cronulla isnt struggling. they get 13,000 crowds, and have lots of assets. sure they arent a massive club but they are doing well enough and plans are they will get better.

3. ive seen what losing clubs in sydney means. sydney is the biggest area in the world where RL is strong, why should that be weakened ?

4. the only way to do it properly (expansion) is to expand the numbers in the the nrl. sure if a sydney team is about to go broke they can move then. but to force a perfectly viable club to move for somewhere like perth would be really dumb.

5. looking 20 years down the track if we can sustain our position in queensland well be far and away above AFL, so thats where we should focus. queensland NRL clubs are setting the benchmark and they clearly need more teams.

6. if its 2 teams in 2012 then one will be queensland for sure. the other, take your pick from central coast, wellington or perth. central coast is being left in case a sydney team chooses to go there, but none has taken the $8 million on offer so far so lets see what happens there.

7. what im saying is we dont really need perth to be the strongest football code in australia. we do need queensland though. so if we have to pick, i can live without perth or adelaide to get more queensland teams, and probably central coast as well.

8. id like to see the nrl add in the long term - 2 more teams in queensland, central coast, wellington / southern orcas, perth, PNG.

22 teams, play each other once for 21? rounds.

Any credibility you might have had has now vanished.

And yet Aukland, Brisbane, Canberra, Canterbury, Cronulla, NQ and Penrith do?

That argument doesn't make sense.



You've completely ignored the point of the post again.



Ideally, it shouldn't, as I said. But, as I said, given the choice between losing one of the weaker Sydney teams to gain the same fan base elsewhere in an untapped market seems a worthwhile exchange.

Sydney would not be lost to RL on the back of one team moving. But that one team could open up a new market elsewhere.



Which is why I haven't suggested doing that.



I agree, QLD need another team. But I don't agree that the NRL should do merely that, and feel smug. there are other markets which need to be addressed alongside this.



I always get slightly nervous when people mention Wellington. NZ produce loads of top players, but I'm not sure they're quite ready for another NRL franchise.

From what I can gather, outside of the heart of RL in NZ (Aukland) Wellington is the next strongest area.



Adelaide, I can understand. Not Perth; you're always going to have less TV cash than the AFL.

"Look! We've got another team in QLD!"
"So what? They were all watching the NRL anyway, it adds no extra value to our TV stations."



Looks good, but that setup will be a long, [ilong[/i way off.

I'm intrigued by a PNG team, but can't for the life of me see how it would be arranged.

I'm sure a good performance from the Kumuls in the coming weeks would increase the calls for such a team, but unfortunately I don't think the money or the political will is there.

news ltd chose which SL clubs to keep and which to kill off. no perth team now is the fault of news ltd. news ltd had the power to make the choice because perth went to news ltd. so its their fault they are no longer in.

im not saying we should ignore perth forever. i am saying though that other areas can offer more for the game now, and if we ignore perth next time round its not that bad.

just because AFL has a team in all capitals doesnt mean we need them now.

more queensland teams would improve the ratings as there would be more high ratings games in queensland which they would watch. more people from queensland would watch a game form their club than a perth team.

PNG - the nrl has looked at a joint venture between darwin and PNG, with darwin being the training facilities and 1/2 the games and PNG the rest.

re wellington - given the number of kiwi RL players in the nrl and overseas, NZ could easily handle another side. indeed we would keep more of our juniors that go to the dark side.

The Gold Coast were also axed in the formation of the NRL; they therefore shouldn't be in the NRL. They made their bed by staying with the ARL, etc.



I'm not suggesting you are!

But long term plans need the planning to start [inow[/i. The Perth junior team is doing all the right things, with apparent support from the appropriate people in the game.



Remind me, what is the money difference in the TV contracts between the NRL and the AFL?



But the Perth team brings greater exposure, and is a more powerful statement to the press and the RL fans in Aus. It opens up a market you otherwise would not have access to.



Seems like a half measure, to me; I'd prefer the franchise to be based in PNG, but I appreciate the difficulties with that.



Most of the NZ juniors seem to come from the NRL academies, so I'm not sure those that leave for RU are motivated by being unable to get a place in any other NRL team. They're motivated by money; another NRL team means more places available at first grade (more cash), and in Wellington is undoubtably more attractive than in Aus for native NZ'ers.

But I don't believe we're not losing juniors because there's not enough teams, we're losing juniors because we're up against the allure of an All Blacks jersey, and fair enough.

the guy that claims to be a RL fan and also surfs at night.




good luck with those waves at night bro