How to solve the NRL’s expansion issue
Roar Pro
By dlang30, 24 Jan 2012 dlang30 is a Roar Pro
220 Have your say
The NRL has been looking to expansion in attempts to both increase its revenue and make headway on its biggest rival, the AFL, in winning over the Australian public for the dominant share of the country’s winter sporting market.
While I do believe expansion is necessary for the game and does indeed help sell the product of the code more, it must to be handled in a sensible manner and one which will be good for the game in the long run.
Since 2005, six major bids of interest have been put forward with the Central Coast, Wellington, Papua New Guinea, Perth, Central Queensland and most recently a second team in Brisbane.
On top of this, there have also been suggestions that some of the current Sydney based clubs in the league should relocate or simply fold to make this process easier for these potential bids to pass.
In my personal view, I think that any form of relegation-based approach the NRL takes to achieve its goals is nothing short of ludicrous and unfair to supporters who have given decades of support to their clubs, only for them to be cut from the competition or rebranded to make way for a new club.
Such bids as a team in Papua New Guinea or a second team in Brisbane are something which I hope never eventuates in my lifetime of supporting this great game.
Putting a team based in PNG isn’t practical based on the current facilities, getting players to sign to play out of the country and the money that the NRL would have to invest to get such a project up and running.
Having a second team in Brisbane on the other hand is something which I just don’t see as needed or helping the code explore into other markets.
The clubs intended name as the ‘Brisbane Bombers’ just doesn’t bring any flair or imagination at all. Not to mention copying from an already existing club name in the AFL.
The Broncos are a one-city team with a monumental fan base and successful history that the entire city of Brisbane has adored for more than two decades.
It’s not like down here in Sydney where we have that culture from one suburb to the next of having a club in Parramatta, Cronulla, Manly, Belmore, Bondi and the Sydney based derbies every weekend.
You can definitely argue that it will bring a game to Brisbane every weekend and increase the games revenue overall, but that’s only if the city chooses to embrace another club with open arms and I’m just not sure the NRL is truly trying to expand the league if that is the way they go about it.
The Central Coast Bears is easily the most promising candidate in my mind for the next expansion period.
The city of Gosford gets at least half a dozen games a year held at Bluetongue and it is obvious they would like to have their own NRL based club in the league to support.
They have excellent facilities, a well thought out corporate structure, over 7000 current memberships and a strategic target area to grow their support.
Other bids from Central Queensland, Wellington and Perth aren’t what the NRL should be focusing on right now until they can sort out the current financial struggles of the already existing clubs in the league and until after a bid like the Central Coast has been made a reality.
I leave the rest of the debate up to my fellow Roarers to have their say on all the topic of expansion, and who they think deserves a team in the NRL.
Love your NRL? The Roar has openings for live bloggers - with possible paid opportunities. Tell us which upcoming game you'd like to trial on.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby League articles
- A simple vision for a nationwide NRL (181)
- Are the Bears finally to come out of hibernation? (146)
- Listen to the fans and allow Central Coast Bears in (113)
- Super League on the up in 2012 (79)
- Rugby league’s new era: where to now? (72)
- ARL commission ready to take on AFL (68)
- NRL changes finals system: Bye, bye McIntyre (63)
- Barba not fazed by NRL fullback rumours
- NRL’s McIntyre finals finally at an end (4)
- NRL preview 2012: Broncos pack want to be NRL’s best in 2012 (5)
- Origin in Melbourne is great for rugby league in Victoria (95)
- Young NRL talent to watch in 2012 (6)
- Maguire needs to bring pride and glory back to Redfern
- My mates told me the McIntye System had to go (5)
- Origin in Melbourne is great for rugby league in Victoria (95)
- Young NRL talent to watch in 2012 (6)
- Maguire needs to bring pride and glory back to Redfern (1)
- My mates told me the McIntye System had to go (5)
- New commission will make the right calls for NRL’s future (0)
- NRL TVC: Back to the future with Bon Jovi [video] (33)
- My fearless predictions for the 2012 NRL Season (6)
January 24th 2012 @ 7:30am
The_Wookie said | January 24th 2012 @ 7:30am | Report comment
Relegation isnt an Australian way I think. I doint think anyone will use it here unless leagues start topping the 20 team mark.
A second team in Brisbane makes commercial sense, its the third largest city in Australia and a major rugby league stronghold…with one team. The Broncos have had a fair run, its time to get some decent competition in. For me, the CC Bears is about doing the right thing. While both teams wont expand the footprint of the code, they will definitely aid the league in expanding to more expensive areas, say Perth and a second NZ team.
It all depends on the commission. I expect much of the new tv money to go to consolidating league operations, increasing club grants, player wages, and funding development, and existing state leagues and national teams. That wont leave a hell of a lot for supporting new expansion teams. Its the deal after the coming one that will really impact the sporting scene in a big way. At least in my opinion.
January 24th 2012 @ 8:18am
Patrick Angel said | January 24th 2012 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Brisbane needs a team more than anywhere else. It’s ridiculous that there has only been one for so long, should be about 4, but it’s too late for that now you’d say.
January 24th 2012 @ 8:34am
Ian Whitchurch said | January 24th 2012 @ 8:34am | Report comment
Patrick,
A problem is that the Brisbane Broncos are a proprietry-limited corporation owned by News Corp, and News Corp are very aware of their own interests. While a second, third and so on Brisbane team would be good for rugby league, it would be bad for the Broncos, making them work harder for fans, sponsors and so on.
January 24th 2012 @ 8:53am
Patrick Angel said | January 24th 2012 @ 8:53am | Report comment
Oh I know why there isn’t (as well as why there was no Gold Coast team, Crushers, etc). Going back, they should have stuck a few of the biggest BRL teams in there, and had the Broncos for the supporters of “the rest”.
January 24th 2012 @ 9:38am
Gaz said | January 24th 2012 @ 9:38am | Report comment
Ian,
You would be simply splitting and re-splitting the supporter base and that’s not good for Rugby League either. That’s the problem with low crowd numbers in Sydney. Best to create new markets away from existing to expand the game and increase the number of supporters rather than re-direct their interest. Melbourne and NZ each commenced with a small bunch of dedicated fans that are now increasing in numbers that will eventually make both clubs sustainable. There is no reason why Perth and Adelaide couldn’t do likewise.
January 24th 2012 @ 9:03am
Rob9 said | January 24th 2012 @ 9:03am | Report comment
What’s ridiculous is the suggestion of 4 Brisbane teams.
Why on earth would you carve up the only economically sustainable club in the league to create 4 basket cases and replicate the situation in Sydney? Brisbane shouldnt be looking at the Sydney model of a club on every street corner as the ‘successful’ strategy to follow. Clearly that isnt working.
Even a second Brisbane team will be a stretch in my view (make no mistake it will come at an initial cost to the Broncos if the new team is to be somewhat successful) but if it is to occur this joke of a model that the bombers bid team are putting forward needs to be thrown away.
January 24th 2012 @ 9:35am
Patrick Angel said | January 24th 2012 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Because having one team in the third largest city is stupid. Every other week there’s no game on, just so Murdoch can make millions.
I was saying there should have been, not let’s put them in now. Also, a bit of competition might lower the enormous ticket prices they charge.
January 24th 2012 @ 9:38am
Ian Whitchurch said | January 24th 2012 @ 9:38am | Report comment
Not just the third largest city, but a city, a region and a state that really, really love their league.
It’d be like the AFL having one team in Perth.
January 24th 2012 @ 1:05pm
Rob9 said | January 24th 2012 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
As I’ve outlined below, one more team in greater Brisbane’s boundaries could work if introduced and marketed correctly. The model that’s being put forward by the current bid team is so far off the mark though it’s not funny. Four teams now or at any point in the future is two teams too many.
February 4th 2012 @ 8:55am
sonya said | February 4th 2012 @ 8:55am | Report comment
I guess if they also used Suncorp as their Home Ground and stuck to having the games NOT on the same week in Brisbane then it would work out fine. Both teams will get people watch if the club is successful.
But having said that, we need to look at what happened to the CRUSHERS to see how well a second bid in Brisbane would work.
I would supprot and watch both, having said that the NRL needs to look at what happened in the ARL when they had all those teams. It was a shambles and the divide between the clubs would be quite significant. We would end up with quite a big gap un the talent stakes.
There simply is not enough talent in the pool for COMPETITIVE sport. Some games would become a WHitewash.
January 24th 2012 @ 12:38pm
Nam Turk said | January 24th 2012 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
Sydney has “basket cases” because there are way more than 4 clubs.
January 24th 2012 @ 5:40pm
Rob9 said | January 24th 2012 @ 5:40pm | Report comment
And Brisbane has a population less than half the size of Sydney so 4 there would be a disarster.
January 24th 2012 @ 8:23am
cos789 said | January 24th 2012 @ 8:23am | Report comment
This was just a “we need the Bears back” puff piece with a thinly veiled attack on their major threat, the Brisbane bid.
Also, there are 2 current Brisbane bids, and likely to be a third. I could tell your agenda as soon as you said
“and most recently a second team in Brisbane.”
implying they don’t deserve to win because they are youngest, which isn’t actually true. Also, there is no Wellington bid.
January 24th 2012 @ 12:37pm
Renegade said | January 24th 2012 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
That’s exactly what i thought….the author also rubbished the Perth bid which is the most logical.
January 24th 2012 @ 4:26pm
B.A Sports said | January 24th 2012 @ 4:26pm | Report comment
I third those comments.
On one hand the author said he didn’t think Brisbane needed a second team because it wasn’t “helping the code explore into other markets” then they tell us that the Central Coast already gets games but should have a team – so not a new market, but that Perth (a new market) shouldn’t have a team.
January 24th 2012 @ 8:43am
Chris said | January 24th 2012 @ 8:43am | Report comment
If expansion is about looking after the fans, then the Central Coast Bears should be a shoe-in for the next slot. Good administration, perfect stadium and pretty much guarranteed good support regardless of whether they do well on the pitch or not. Whether they add much in terms of growing the game nationally I’m not sure.
If you want to grow the game (and almost certainly national revenue), then a team in Perth (and possibly Adelaide) should be a priority.
Personally I would add (in order) the Central Coast Bears, a second Brisbane team and relocate the Cronulla Sharks to Perth. Probably over a 10-15 year timeframe to allow each team to be bedded down before the next addition.
January 24th 2012 @ 9:11am
Ian Whitchurch said | January 24th 2012 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Chris,
Im not sure rugby league can afford to give a 10-15 year head start to Australian Rules before it becomes a national competition again.
January 24th 2012 @ 10:16am
Chris said | January 24th 2012 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Ian, that ship sailed with the Super League split.
I’d rather the NRL hasten slowly by shoring up their hearland first before moving into exploring new markets.
January 24th 2012 @ 9:57am
Risy said | January 24th 2012 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Put in a 2nd Brisbane team, put the bears in Adelaide and then RELOCATE YOUR CLUB TO PERTH.
January 24th 2012 @ 8:55am
Paul said | January 24th 2012 @ 8:55am | Report comment
I think the Central coast would be a mistake. Another team inbetween Manly and Newcastle is not mving forward, Whilst i dont have any stats or inside information i think the sooner we put a team in Perth and Adelaide the better. Both those states are more open to league than Melbourne. We have to keep moving the game forward and putting another team in the middle of 2 in a 200klm stretch of coastline is not looking at the big picture. Ideally the competition should be
1 x Syd Representing Sydney Roosters and Rabbitohs
1 X w/gong Drag, Sharks, Illawarra
1 x Nth Coast Bears, Eagles Knights
1 X Central Syd Dogs, Eels
1 x Western Syd Panthers
1 x ACT Canberra
1x Gold Coast
1 x Brisbane
1 x Ipswich
1 x Nth QLD
1 x Melb
1 x West Aust
1 x Adelaide
January 24th 2012 @ 10:01am
WTF said | January 24th 2012 @ 10:01am | Report comment
So you want to destroy Rugbyleague all together.Can never see a Roosters/Rabbits merger….Dogs/Eels, Knights/Eagles/Bears….
your dreaming…..wake up and have another pill.
January 24th 2012 @ 4:20pm
peeeko said | January 24th 2012 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
Excellent comment wtf, abandoning traditional teams to try and start teams in afl strongholds would be a massive mistake
January 25th 2012 @ 4:59pm
cos789 said | January 25th 2012 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
agreed, but Paul’s notion of moving the game towards a national footprint is correct though.
January 27th 2012 @ 1:01pm
Paul said | January 27th 2012 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
WTF and Peeko, you guys need to read more than just the sports pages. I support the ROOSTERS AND IF THE MERGED WITH THE RABBITS I DONT KNOW WHAT I WOULD DO, but in todays world moving forward i cant see how everyone can survive and for any sport to be called a national sport the competitors need to be spread evenly over that nation like the EPL and NFL.
January 27th 2012 @ 7:18pm
Jaredsbro said | January 27th 2012 @ 7:18pm | Report comment
Ummm has anyone actually checked but the only truly national football comp in the US is NCAA footy…and the EPL doesn’t have teams in Yorkshire (Four million I think). If it’s about dollar bags only, it’s not about nationalisation full stop!
February 13th 2012 @ 2:35pm
Scott said | February 13th 2012 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
Jaredsbro –
EPL doesnt have a team from Yorkshire because none are good enough at the moment
January 24th 2012 @ 8:55am
Kevin Higginson said | January 24th 2012 @ 8:55am | Report comment
The first thing would be to look at getting 16 teams based in the major urban areas in the country. So start with Perth and Adelaide, and lose 2 sydney teams.
The Super League should also expand to 16 teams and have a world competition based around the NFL schedule of 16-18 games per season and play-offs.
January 24th 2012 @ 9:01am
Aaron said | January 24th 2012 @ 9:01am | Report comment
No mention of the Western Corridor? nearly one million Queenslanders with no team to support, who define the meaning of “rugby league heartland” and oh, the fastest growing region in Australia. It will be the size of Brisbane in 20 years. Some say wait those 20 years before giving them a team but only one example is needed, imagine the Cowboys when Townsville is 1 million strong (currently 180, 000)
This is just another article by another NSW resident who is intent on over saturating the market even more and killing the game. Quick, talk about relocating a team to WA even though the demand their team back rather than someone else’s failed team. Yawn.
January 26th 2012 @ 6:56pm
Queensland's game is rugby league said | January 26th 2012 @ 6:56pm | Report comment
“This is just another article by another NSW resident who is intent on over saturating the market even more and killing the game. Quick, talk about relocating a team to WA even though the demand their team back rather than someone else’s failed team. Yawn.”
That was my impression when I read it.
January 24th 2012 @ 9:05am
Mals said | January 24th 2012 @ 9:05am | Report comment
In my opinion the next NRL club should be a 2nd team playing out of Suncorp but it needs to be presented differently from the Brisbane 2/Brisbane Bombers bids. I know Brisbane being a little inland from the coast doesn’t have a Greater Western suburbs area like Sydney but can someone with a better handle on the demographics of Brisbane work out a way the city could be “divided up” between 2 NRL clubs?? Incorporating the Ipswich catchment into the new bid i thought would be a no-brainer.
January 24th 2012 @ 9:09am
Ian Whitchurch said | January 24th 2012 @ 9:09am | Report comment
I’d vote for the Ipswich Jets if I was on the IC.
January 24th 2012 @ 9:46am
Rob9 said | January 24th 2012 @ 9:46am | Report comment
One team based north of the river and one team south of the river. It’s a natural divide that has the city almost perfectly cut in two and a bit of north/south rivalry already exists in brissie that 2 brisbane based teams can play up to.
The Broncos are based at Red Hill and play out of Suncorp (both north of the river) so designate them the north side team. If a 2nd brissie team is to come in it should be based on the southside which would capture fans from logan and ipswich aswell as those in the southern suburbs. Brisbane could do with a 30,000 seat boutique stadium ( teams like the roar could play out of there too). Knock it up close to a commercial centre (for transport reasons) on the southside and away we go!
January 24th 2012 @ 10:09am
Aaron said | January 24th 2012 @ 10:09am | Report comment
You’re kidding yourself if you think people from the Western Corridor catchment are going to respond well too “you cannot have your own team, but you can support one from Brisbane!”
Brisbane Broncos are the one team in the whole NRL who make great money, can we please try something that doesn’t attempt to destroy that?
It’ll be NSW all over again.
January 24th 2012 @ 10:25am
Ian Whitchurch said | January 24th 2012 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Aaron,
They dont make great money. They make kind of OK money. 33k of crowds every two weeks in a rugby leage mad city just isnt good enough.
http://stats.rleague.com/rl/crowds/2011.html
January 24th 2012 @ 11:13am
Aaron said | January 24th 2012 @ 11:13am | Report comment
They make great money in terms of NRL teams. NRL has never had high attendance and never will so we have to be realistic about crowds. The NFL (in 300, 000, 000 strong America) averages below 80, 000 per game. The NRL (in Australia and New Zealand for a combined under 30, 000, 000) should average about 20, 000 a game in 2012.
Given the population of America the NRL then averages 200, 000 a game, and i know stadium size doesn’t allow that but it shows our attendance really isn’t as bad as we give it credit for.
We cannot compare to the AFL too. As a Victorian i refuse to hear anything of it because they are entirely different games played in entirely different stadiums so i hope that isn’t your persuasion.
January 24th 2012 @ 11:22am
Ian Whitchurch said | January 24th 2012 @ 11:22am | Report comment
Aaron,
“We cannot compare to the AFL too” is the weakest retort I’ve seen for a long time – if you want Rugby League to forever be the smaller, poorer, less successful code then good luck to you.
Brisbane’s home crowds last year were about the same as Fremantle’s, a club that shares its city with a bigger and more successful neighbour.
http://stats.rleague.com/afl/crowds/fremantle.html
I think Rugby League can and should compete head on with Australian Rules, and should not just meekly surrender.
January 25th 2012 @ 8:00pm
Queensland's game is rugby league said | January 25th 2012 @ 8:00pm | Report comment
Ian,
Obviously you have no idea how much it costs to get a ticket to a Broncos game…
January 24th 2012 @ 1:00pm
Rob9 said | January 24th 2012 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
The population of metro Brisbane on the south side of the river is roughly half a million people. If a team were to be based from a stadium at say Mt Gravatt you could assume that Logan City’s residents (roughly 300,000 of them) would build an allegiance to a team based on the cities south side, considering they’re on the south end of the greater Brisbane area. Ipswich is a bit trickier being a little further from the south side of Brisbane than Logan, but when you consider that many people make the trek from out that way to Suncorp to watch the Broncos it’s not that far fetched to assume that they could build allegiances to a team still playing out of the metro boundaries but closer to their geographical location.
I’ve heard all the things about the huge growth is set to occur in the western corridor but the fact remains that currently there aren’t anymore than 200,000 people living in Ipswich. Nowhere near enough to justify their own team at this stage. And I agree QLD shouldn’t follow the Sydney model of a team on each street corner, so I believe that greater Brisbane should never have more than 2 teams representing the city. But at this stage ‘IF’ a second Brisbane team is to be admitted it shouldn’t be based out in Ipswich where there isn’t the population to sustain an NRL team currently. As I’ve said above on another post (and I think this agrees with your line of thinking), Brisbane needs to be really careful if they’re going to introduce a second team in the area, and the model the current bid team is putting forward is a disaster.
Regarding your figures below comparing NFL and NRL crowd figures, they’re very skewed. They may average slightly below 80,000 but the average stadium size in the states would be similar. Having just gone there and struggled to get tickets to games in 3 different cities, there would definitely be higher averages if they had the stadiums that related to the size of their population.
January 24th 2012 @ 6:49pm
Curious said | January 24th 2012 @ 6:49pm | Report comment
Totally agree Rob9 – Broncs by being based in Red Hill are north of the river, a geographic barrier which has 2/5ths the population of Brisbane City. Another NRL club based on the southside would account for 3/5ths of Brisbanes population, then add in Logans almost 400K, Ipswich 200K and Redlands 150K would well exceed Broncs northside catchment. Having looked at a recent Census population for the 4 localities mentioned would mean 1.5million people to be drawn from. Many current season ticket holders of which I am one attend Broncos matches – I have over time noted that most people attending Suncorp do so by arriving thfough public transport from the southside. I would like to think that the crowd figures attending each Broncos/NRL matches would be similarly proportioned e.g. crowd of 30,000 would have 18,000 fans, at least, as being drawn from the southside and other centres mentioned. The Brisbane Bombers must know something as they want fans to be from similar centres excluding Ipswich but including Sunshine Coast people
January 24th 2012 @ 7:54pm
strayrabbit said | January 24th 2012 @ 7:54pm | Report comment
how about using the broncos old home of QE2 STADIUM at Nathan …southside
January 24th 2012 @ 8:14pm
Rob9 said | January 24th 2012 @ 8:14pm | Report comment
Its an option but the place would need some work to make it a better venue for watching rugby league.
January 24th 2012 @ 10:28pm
anopinion said | January 24th 2012 @ 10:28pm | Report comment
Broncos are north of the river but have supporters all over. A team using the Ipswich (South West) or Logan (South) areas as a base support would be very successful. The old QE2 stadium (where the Broncos used to play) is on the south side. Please be aware many people in Brisbane hate the Broncos but cheer on Brisbane.
January 25th 2012 @ 8:08pm
Sam said | January 25th 2012 @ 8:08pm | Report comment
I don’t like the Brisbane Bombers bid either. If we were to go with a north/south divide, I think working with the Souths Logan Magpies (QLD Cup team) would work well. The bid team could be South Brisbane Magpies and have the Souths Logan Magpies as a feeder/reserves team (maybe even revert back to Logan Scorpions).
This gives them more of a grassroots bid feel, which would bring in more supporters. Although it would be ideal to play out of a stadium on the south side of the river, I think Suncorp would be the best option. It is one of the best rectangular stadiums in the world, and pretty much right on the river too. However, might be difficult with the Queensland Reds and Brisbane Roar also playing there. A new stadium (or redeveloped QE2) might be necessary.
I think the next teams need to come from Perth and either a Brisbane team that works with grassroots or Ipswich. If the Sharks redevelopment falls through, then I think it might be time to cut them and then we can bring in the CC Bears too.
January 24th 2012 @ 9:07am
King of the Gorgonites said | January 24th 2012 @ 9:07am | Report comment
You guys need to get in Perth. As a RU fan i am shocked it hasnt been doen in the last few years. If league had a team there, then finally a proper rectnagle stadium may get build, which would help all codes.
As CC has agreed with me on, if the Cronulla redevleopment falls through ,then the Sharks to Perth.
January 24th 2012 @ 7:56pm
strayrabbit said | January 24th 2012 @ 7:56pm | Report comment
Sharks to Adelaide ……Southern sharks
January 27th 2012 @ 2:36pm
seanmaguire said | January 27th 2012 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
Perth needs a team. It would be great to structure the draw so it doesn’t clash with the Force. A fair few fans would follow both teams, even if they had to wear fake wigs and beards to go to the league. I thought they were building a rectangular stadium?
January 24th 2012 @ 9:23am
Gaz said | January 24th 2012 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Yes it will be a sad time when some Sydney clubs need to relocate or amalgamate but that’s the only answer and I’m sure it will eventually come to that situation. To create a truly National League expansion into other states is a must and unfortunately there are too many clubs in the one area of Sydney to currently let that happen and retain a sensible and workable competition. As in the past clubs will be given the opportunity to amalgamate or relocate. Crowd numbers at games in Sydney, financial stability and performance on the field should dictate the clubs needing the broom. A second team in Brisbane is not the answer either or Ipswich – far too close. Central Coast is really only a seven iron away from the congestion and it’s simply too early to consider PNG or another NZ team when the Warriors are beginning to build steadily. They need to be looking at Perth and Adelaide first. Somebody in Perth is wanting to finance a team, Gallop should be on the next plane over and welcome him with open arms but as the Nrl appear unable to organise their own Independant Commission, expansion in reality is light years away.
January 24th 2012 @ 9:37am
Ian Whitchurch said | January 24th 2012 @ 9:37am | Report comment
Gaz,
The Geoffrey Edelsten solution of getting a private individual to fund a club is a really, really bad idea.
All the Sydney clubs are viable, if they do the hard yards of improving memberships and getting sponsors.
January 24th 2012 @ 9:48am
Gaz said | January 24th 2012 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Ian,
Yes Edelsten doesn’t rate but thinking more along the lines of Crowe and Tinkler mighten be such a bad thing. Not so sure about the shire and lets face it, they have all had a lot of time to get it right. Personally I wouldn’t like to see any clubs fold but I guess that’s progress. The AFL had to bite the bullet with Brisbane and Sydney – maybe NRL has to follow suit with Perth and Adelaide.
January 24th 2012 @ 10:23am
Ian Whitchurch said | January 24th 2012 @ 10:23am | Report comment
Gaz,
Theres also the Con Constantine/Terry Serepisos issue, where your depp pocketed owner suddenly goes broke.
Id also argue the Brisbane Bears had started to come good by 1996 (18k average crowds, which was 4k under Fremantles and a little better than Footscrays).
Far less blood and screaming will be involved if a club goes of it’s own will rather that is forced – use a relocation carrot of, say, $20m in relocation money, an extra mill in salary cap for five years and four games a year at your old home ground.