The Central Coast Bears must be wondering whether their curse is set to continue after their rally at the NRL match between Souths and Newcastle came at a time when expansion is a dirty word in Australian sport.
While the farce of the A-League’s push in Queensland develops daily, the lessons of their ill judged move into North Queensland and the Gold Coast should not be lost on the NRL bosses.
While many football fans and media commentators in Australia were initially in a chest beating mood over Clive Palmer and his wealth, their gloating over his involvement must now cause them to wince with embarrassment.
The whole business model of relying on the largesse of one tycoon when it is patently obvious their investment will suffer heavy losses has been seen to be seriously flawed.
But from the wreckage of the Fury and Gold Coast United, it has become clear that three things are vital to make new franchises work.
A ground-swell of public support, a broad based ownership structure and the commitment of the governing body to firstly carry out proper due diligence on the bids and to be prepared to support these expensive experiments.
It’s obvious to anyone that in the rush to show everyone how ambitious and bold the A-League was they cut corners and pushed through the two Queensland clubs.
It’s a stark contrast to the plight of the Bears who despite having an enormous amount of support from the rugby league public, a solid business case and possibly even the moral highground they’ve had to wait a torturous length of time hear whether they have got the green light.
If anything their actions on Saturday could well be construed as reminding the NRL that they were still waiting patiently to be granted a licence.
Only in the past week has David Gallop finally stated in public that the NRL may consider expansion in 2013 with the Central Coast and Perth his personal preferences.
The Western Reds are also hoping that their softly, softly approach of appeasing the NRL bean counters will also be successful. It’s certainly a long way from Clive Palmer, his bullish statements and helicopter rides. But the Reds have been in constant contact with the NRL over a return to the top flight.
Their decision this year to enter the National S.G Ball competition over the NSW Jim Beam Cup came after discussions with the governing body ended with the decision that the former would be viewed more favourably when it came to decision on expansion.
With their focus on youth development their expensive waiting game continues.
The Reds would undoubtedly need more support by the NRL or whatever governing body controls the purse strings in 2013, but like the AFL with the Gold Coast and Western Sydney, it’s decision which must be supported for the good of the game. If the NRL decides it is in the financial position to back their decision.
Finally, the failure of Gold Coast United should also be a hammer blow to those who were hoping to see an NRL team based in PNG in the next 30 years.
With Clive Palmer again the man behind that bid, the idea that his long term commitment to such an incredibly expensive operation could be trusted is fanciful.
PNG may have a population that loves rugby league but they also have a country seriously lacking in infrastructure.
It may seem that every man in his dog knows someone who has trekked the Kokoda Trail these days, but that does not mean they have anywhere near the facilities to handle an NRL franchise.
The population, as much as I’m sure they would love to see NRL players in the flesh every fortnight, would probably prefer the money spent on providing more basic amenities.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby League articles
- An open letter to Channel Nine (107)
- Gallop and some of his precious Sydney NRL clubs must go (101)
- The NRL is back baby! (65)
- The NRL’s scariest players (56)
- The NRL needs a vision (52)
- Federal Court has it wrong on sports broadcast copyright (48)
- Bulldogs setting benchmark for Sydney’s NRL clubs (46)
- New league chief coy on TV deal
- RL Commission was never in doubt, says Searle RL Commission was never in doubt: Searle
- Chalk predicts bright rugby league future
- Clubs must stop knifing Gallop, if commission is to succeed
- Rugby league’s new era: where to now? (23)
- New dawn for rugby league gets underway (11)
- Rugby league commission ushers in new era (3)
- Rugby league’s new era: where to now? (23)
- Federal Court has it wrong on sports broadcast copyright (49)
- An open letter to Channel Nine (108)
- The NRL’s scariest players (56)
- Is the All Stars match increasing the divide? (25)
- Channel Nine needs NRL-cricket ODI compromise (36)
- The NRL needs a vision (52)
Crosscoder said | April 12th 2010 @ 7:39am | Report comment
Agree 100%.The point for the expansion for the A league appears to be, throw dots on various areas in Oz soonest possible,provided the initial promised finance is in place,and provided there is a strong junior base.
A large junior base is not guarantee of financial success.Sydney FC is I understand losing a stack of money,despite being successful on the field.
Was this quick expansion intended to have the necessary spread of clubs,to ensure the bid for the Wc had a better chance?.
Not having a competition on FTA TV is a handicap.
Don’t get the wrong impression having a new stadium used by rectangle codes for 12 months is a good thing.Utilising facilities to the max.
Lessons should have been learnt by looking firstly at the intitial expansion forays into the GC,by rugby league .Rushed,poorly planned,shakily financed until the Chargers,then the SL war did the rest.Even the Crushers was rushed with players thron in at the last minute and this was in a rl mad city.
The Titans have shown the way,deep involvement with the local community,strong business support,and working on the proposal for a number of years not a mere couple.
The Bears have been doing just that since they were given the flick yonks ago.All the boxes ticked,stadium,community involvement,huge catchment area,huge junior base,business backing.Yet they still have to wait in the queue patiently and confidently,awaiting their NRL visa to be stamped.
Perth a city where rugby league is a minor code,at one stage had an ARL club/SL club ie they have already left a footprint.
No big crowds ATT but a growing junior base and support.They also have had to wait,with many problems.At last they have a junior side involved with NRL teams,they have a committee working on the project,sponsorship coming through.They still need to get communty involvement to a larger degree,and as stated by Steve initial support from the NRL.
And yet we are still talking another 3 years.
The time zone factor for Perth,for matches beamed back to the eastern states is another selling point.
oikee said | April 12th 2010 @ 7:56am | Report comment
The main issue is to get a team in the city.(Perth). If you dont have a team to support, how are you ever going to grow the game. The Bears and Central Queensland are a non issue. They already have the support in place, ready to go. So a team in Perth would only have to build on sponsership and fan support. Over time i think the team would be successful.
Soccer only needs more time to make the teams they have work, It takes time to build a winning culture.
The Titans are still yet to build a winning culture, but it is getting there, a grand final win helps. NZ is another option, if the warriors could snag a grand final, i think there could be a possitive outllook for another team somewhere in NZ. It would also do wonders for the code over there.
waterboy said | April 12th 2010 @ 8:53am | Report comment
Slow and steady will win the race for NRL expansion plans.
Jay said | April 12th 2010 @ 9:50am | Report comment
“A ground-swell of public support, a broad based ownership structure and the commitment of the governing body to firstly carry out proper due diligence on the bids and to be prepared to support these expensive experiments.”
Well summed up there Steve
The NRL’s first priority should be to establish an independent commission. Then they should maximise TV dollars in 2012 and also increase the salary cap/continue to boost club memberships. Once your backyard is in order, then only consider expanding.
RL in general has experienced poor expansion. Under the NRL body, right or wrongly, the competition has reduced the numer of teams, introduced a salary cap and the end result is a close competition that will now (hopefully) attract maximum tv dolloars in 2012.
Its important that the new expansion clubs eventually become self-sustaining – have adequate members, sponsorship and attendance/stadium.
It would be great to have expand in a heartland area and an expansion area (i.e. central coast and perth) to somewhat ‘hedge’ your bets. The Western Force (not sure about their finances) seem to have packed houses every home game (albeit rugby is more of an established game in WA), which suggests that non-AFL codes may do alright in the winter season.
JamesP said | April 12th 2010 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
Packed houses at Member Equity stadium maybe (barely holds 20k) but they are a distant second to AFL – arguably the same size as the Perth Glory.
You would need to look at that very carefully for the exact same reason I am wary of the Melbourne Rebels – the Storm loose millions a year, and the Rebels could shirnk their supporter base further. If Melbourne with a population of over 4 million can’t support 2 Rugby Union/League teams, then what hope does Perth have, being a third of the size.
King of the Gorganites said | April 12th 2010 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
Most RL teams would love an average crowd of 20K!
I expect the rebels average crowd to be 50% higher then the storm. should be very interesting to see how that battle unfolds.
KoGs
JamesP said | April 12th 2010 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
Yes that is true! I had my AFL tinted glasses on again….
Corey said | April 12th 2010 @ 9:47pm | Report comment
Also, Melbourne people only have 2 team sports that they like, AFL and Cricket, you have the occasional Soccer fanatic, but Melbourne are probably more one-eyed than Queenslanders with their sport. Which isn’t always a bad thing, but it does limit expansion opportunities for other sports. Perth isn’t as one-eyed, due to their geographical position they have a lot of ex-pats and a very unique culture from Melbourne.
But Perth is a necessity for League, NRL doesn’t rely on crowd figures, although they should push them a lot harder since that is where clubs make the money- the NRL relies on TV rights, so for the NRL to expand to Perth that means a larger audience, the largest state in the WORLD!!!!
Michael C said | April 13th 2010 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Corey -
keep mindful that re the old NSL that Melb and Victoria had a high number of sides in the league over the years…..soccer isn’t number 1 but it’s not insignificant.
re Australian Football……it is unified. In NSW and QLD you have the Rugby split….but, let’s be serious here, the 2 Rugby codes simply occupy the domain in NSW and QLD that the unified Australian Football occupies in the (for want of better description) ‘AFL states’.
Meblourne still provides the best attended HAL side, a pretty well attended NRL side (by NRL standards other than in Brisbane…..and given how cold and dismal OP on a June/July Saturday night is….the Storm have done okay).
The rebels will be interesting to see how they go. You’ve also got to remember, that re corporate and sporting ‘extra-carricular’ interest goes, you’ve got the annual circus of the Tennis Grand Slam Open and the F1 GP……..these things limit the capacity for people to go flocking to another winter code of football that really doesn’t occupy any place that isn’t already better occupied by a unified code.
the ‘one-eyed’ thing is a bit of an insult really.
Key things about Storm seem to have been that they had too much success too soon……no Vics involved and were owned by News Ltd. Try selling that to a population that is built around following a member owned club through thick and thin and years of graft and toil.
Bob said | April 12th 2010 @ 10:27am | Report comment
i think the NRL should be more agressive in its expansion.
The A – League expansion is a joke but it they can hang in there I would see the clubs slowly grow in Qld.
The NRL needs to dump a couple of Sydney clubs and expand into WA and SA.
Merge 4 clubs into 2 and start another Brisbane club. with an average of 35,000 a game the Broncos could surely afford to give up some supporters.
Emperor Penguin said | April 14th 2010 @ 6:46pm | Report comment
No forced mergers. We learned that from Super League.
Don’t kill clubs with traditions and supporter bases, you alienate current fans. Relocate them and build new fan bases. We learned that one from Super League. Do what the NFL/AFL have done.
The NRL should have a plan in place to assist struggling Sydney clubs to relocate, and make it an offer they can’t refuse, just like the AFL did with the Swans. So Cronulla or Manly to the Sunshine Coast, + Bears + Reds.
Once thats done, further expansion is more a luxury, not a necesity, look at a 5th SE Qld side and even longer term Central Qld (doesn’t have the population right now), Adelaide and PNG.
M1tch said | April 12th 2010 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Well said Steve – you have summed up everything
Steve Kaless said | April 12th 2010 @ 10:56am | Report comment
Bob,
I can’t help but disagree on aggressive expansion, and trust me, I’d loved to see clubs all over the map.
The first, and most important problem, is that clubs are expensive and if you just throw one in and the fans simply don’t show it gets very very costly. But surely all the evidence is there for Perth and CC.
The other problem with mergers is I can’t see any potential clubs ripe for that? Maybe Cronulla for a relocation, but I tend to be against that because I think the new area should get their own team not a side no one else wants.
Would you be happy to make the phone call to tell clubs they have to merge?
The final point about Perth and CC is, as Steve Mascord has already pointed out, is that in many ways its not expansion its just righting the wrongs of the past as both clubs should never have been booted in the first place. The Reds should already more than 15 years of history behind them, while the Bears, a foundation club, should still be chasing that first Grand Final since 1922!
MasterBlaster said | April 12th 2010 @ 11:23am | Report comment
We had our opportunity in Perth and RL missed it. Perth is not a realistic option. We had to stick with the Reds. Maybe they would have been as big as the Storm?
WA certainly does support non-afl sports. look at the force for example. they hadnt one a game all year, but last week managed to sell out there home ground, with all the fans decked out in club colours. they are true supporters over there. now you may ask could that translate to RL? IMO no it wont. A large proportion of the Force’s fan base are ex-pat South Africans and POMS. the Saffas dont/wont support RL. the poms are not from Yorkshire so wont support RL (now before people jump up and down i realise they are generalisations, but they are true). Accordinly we should look to expand into our heartlands. the central coast is the obvious choice, but needs to be at the expense of a sydney club. our comp should not introduce any more teams, wihtout cutting some.
feedback would be appreciated.
Steve Kaless said | April 12th 2010 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
Master Blaster,
I agree that Perth was a missed opportunity but disagree that the chance is lost.
I think there are plenty of people in Perth who would support both the Force and Reds.
The migration from eastern states also puts plenty of league fans in WA.
The Reds attracted good crowds before they were chopped, it won’t be easy, but that doesn’t it won’t work.
MasterBlaster said | April 12th 2010 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
I hope your right and the chance has not been lost, but im not so confident.
the beauty of Perth (and AFL states generally) are that they are loyal fans who purchase season tickets/memberships. thats why the force have managed to get near full houses despite poor onfield performances (exclduing the last two weeks). with the super rugyb set to expand next year with a longer season, rugby (both codes) supporters will have a genuine season and more home games. Season tickets will increase, which wont hurt the Force, but may lead to rugby fans (RL and RU) having less disposable income and time to spend on the new Reds.
your point about migaration about the eastern states is valid, however, that is correlated with the mining boom. if the mining booms slows, then so will eastern migration. we cant rely on NSW and QLD ex-pats.
Col the Bear said | April 12th 2010 @ 10:01pm | Report comment
25 000 they got for their first game the reds back in 95..and they were averaging 13 000 for a home game..for their short life..just think if they had of had a few years under their belt like Melbourne..there’s potential there..I think they should go back to yellow, red and black and white, instead of the red and grey the SG ball wear now,and their Jim beam cup side did for the past couple of years.
JP said | April 12th 2010 @ 11:49am | Report comment
Agree with everything Steve.
I would be very happy to see the W Reds come back into the NRL at some stage. (Being a Reds supporter as a kid)
Perth this year got 10k to a St George v Roosters trial which is a fantastic showing.
Souths last year got close to 18k for their game against the storm in Perth.
From all reports they are growing their junior numbers quite well.
Ideally I would like to see the following areas get a side;
Central Coast
Central Queensland (Bundaberg to Mackay)
Perth
2nd New Zealand team.
In that order.
I think we need two teams from Sydney to merge, relocate or fold. I would choose the Roosters & Sharks because of their small supporter base, junior participation and close proximity to other successful clubs i.e. Souths & St George.
I think the most exciting part of all this is the fact the NRL is moving forward on and off the field. I can’t wait to see the result of the new TV negotiations. As live TV games nationally and increase in revenue is vital for expansion to succeed.
DB said | April 12th 2010 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
As an outsider looking in, I’ve always wondered why there isn’t a 2nd team from Brisbane. The dominate in revenue crowds and membership, but still only one side. If Sydney is to have 8??? sides then surely Brisbane with about 1/2 the population can support 2 sides. perhaps even 3
JamesP said | April 12th 2010 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
Also being a “League Outsider” I would definitely agree to that. Much more than putting in a RL team in Perth. You missed the boat with the Reds, and the Force has now taken that market. Having said that – it would probably be no risker than AFL starting with GWS – but the AFL are commited to GWS for a generation (i.e. 20+ years). Will the NRL be/do the same?
Michael C said | April 13th 2010 @ 9:22am | Report comment
agreed (as a RL outsider),
surely the QRL would want a greater ‘representation’ in what is still just an expanded NSWRL.
The article quotes Gallop’s preference as Central Coast (what, further enhancing the NSW-centricity!!!) and Perth……where’s QLD???
Looking to the AFL for example – and they are expanding in NSW and QLD,……so, at least not further cementing the Vic base…..but further diluting it.
However, the NRL has this regional basis….Newcastle, Wollongong, Canberra, Townsville……and have let Central Coast slide……..what is the major threat to these regionals?? not basketball, but soccer. So, that explains the Central Coast.
However – there’s a current AFL thread about ‘conferences’……..why not likewise with the NRL…..a QLD based conference that might include Cairns, Logan, Toowoomba, Darwin and a NSW based conference??
Emperor Penguin said | April 14th 2010 @ 6:59pm | Report comment
Simple really. RL favours a “one team town” model like the NFL. Much of RL structure and planning has been borrowed from the NFL in the past (80′s onwards). Its why you see places like NQld, Canberra, Illawarra, Newcastle, Gold Coast, Auckland with a side.
The only side in the AFL currently that compares is Geelong. RL would favour a club in a satelite city to Brisbane over another Brisbane proper club.
The other reason is politics. When the South Qld Crushers and Gold Coast Seagulls folded in the fall out from superleague, one of the limits pushed on the game by News Corp was that there would be no new SE Qld side for 10 years.
Also, the QRL has in the past been opposed to clubs in Qld. The Gold Coast Seagulls were actually based and run from Tweed Heads in northern NSW for that reason, to help create a monopoly for the Broncos, and apease those with interests.
Hence why it took so long for the Gold Coast Titans to fight their way back into the game.
Ken said | April 13th 2010 @ 9:38am | Report comment
Yep, it is an imbalance – the reasons are all historical rather than logical. Obviously the NRL was born out of the NSWRL (in the same way that the AFL came from the VFL) so there is a cluster of clubs in Sydney which are too densely spaced compared to the current ideal. Doesn’t help either that the Broncos are quite happy with being the only team in town and have not exactly encouraged expansion on their turf (they weren’t even very enamoured with the GC coming back in if i remember correctly).
All that said, there was a second Brisbane team for a few years, the South Queensland Crushers, they came into existence right before the Super League war in ’95 (along with the Western Reds, Adelaide Rams, North Queensland Cowboys and Auckland Warriors) and like 2 of those other teams were culled as part of the peace agreement. After giving itself a massive beating, it took another decade for RL to get back to a position to expand again – expensive lessons learnt but hopefully they were taken to heart!
Col the Bear said | April 13th 2010 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
Adelaide was a product of super league, they were desperate for another team to counteract the ARL so they hastily put together the Rams purely for SL.as was Hunter Mariners.(the most short lived team outside of Cumberland and coincidently both Blue and Yellow).. they weren’t part of the NSWRL expansion..
Emperor Penguin said | April 14th 2010 @ 7:07pm | Report comment
Yes, but Cumberland was basically the forerunner of the Parramatta Eels. Cumberland didn’t have the player strength to continue, as Western Suburbs Magpies sucked up all the RU tallent in the west in 1908 after the split, and Cumberland could barely field a side.
Cumberland were always doomed, but have done okay under the Parra guise.
Hunter Mariners were a shadow of the Knights, and the Rams were there just to make up the numbers, Adelaide was never taken seriously.
Ken said | April 15th 2010 @ 10:21am | Report comment
OK, a pointless technicality (hey what are these forums for anyway!) but the original Newcastle side (the rebels) also only lasted 2 seasons and I imagine played far less games than the Rams. That wasn’t really a failure though since they dropped out to start their own local comp
Emperor Penguin said | April 16th 2010 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
Yep, and then got a side into the NSWRL in the 80s when the top tiers of the game began consolidating.
Same is true of the Illawarra Steelers, Canberra Raiders and so on. Most areas have very old RL ties, but didn’t have a side in the top tier comp until recently when the game has gone national.
The difference with the Rams was they were plonked there by News Limited simply to make up enough teams for their comp. Completely unnatural development, much like the GWS AFL side.
Storm only worked when they did this because Melbourne is so large and they killed several teams to feed the Storm.