National NRL needs relocation, not expansion

I am sick and tired of all this bullshit arguing and bickering between NRL and AFL, for god sake it is only sport. I am also f**ked of about people on the east coast think that they are gods gift of Australia. With the mining boom in South Australia and the BHP Billiton Olympic Dam expansion, South Australia will be the biggest money making state in Australia.There are people from all over the world relocating to South Australia so people from Eastern Australia just shut the f**k up and most of the people that are relocating here from overseas are rugby league supporters that would love a team in SA. I wish that the East Coast in January with the floods just completely got wiped of the map, and by the way I did not donate even a cent because of your hatred to the people west of the Queensland, NSW borders and the people south of the NSW border,with the floods comment I did not mean the people of Victoria.

the obvious answer as you describe it ,has not prevented 3 other codes from setting up teams in Melbourne.So the answer is ,create a niche market. Expansion is only rubbish when the code is hamstrung financially ,which is the current position,but not the long term position(2013).Unless of course all the FTA stations go into administration and rl supporters cancel en masse Fox subs.. Agree there is plenty of room for growth in Sydney:the Bears,and Brisbane 2-3 more team perhaps. And you are suggesting that expanding in areas such as Perth will not assist growth in the game of rl,nor offer Tv stations more time slots (ie more code income). Yet throwing money around like confetti in GWS andGC,because you have it, is a guaranteed formula for success. When i read that very thought of Alan Bond,and ch10 comes into my head.

SFM Who said the code is exapnding for the sake of expanding.The governing body hasn't asked for formal bids.We don't know what monies will be available from 2013 and whether they had the money to splash around they would not follow the AFL model (confetti at another code's players) The bids are coming from areas where they believe @there is a demand b) it offers commerial value to the code c) increasing exposure to more markets ,bringsfinancially better sponsorship. The NRL could take out NATIONAL form its title.But why should it? Using that view, the AFL could do the same.After all they don't have a team domiciled in Tasmania,or the NT or even in the national capital. Just as valid an argument. The code is not even considering Adelaide for starters,PNG has no chance.Perth they will do what other codes do in new territory,create a niche market. Ever considered that WA had a team in the ARL then ditched by the SL fiasco,or the fact they had a strong supporter base despite playing at the WACA( rectangular code unfriendly),or that NRl teams have subseqeuntly played trials and matches over there and secured decent crowds despite no Perth side,or the little known fact the Reds had to pay for all visiting teams airfares,or the benefits of having the 2 hr time zone for TV(such as the Warriors do for the comp),or the strong chance of a much higher tv contract to further assist Perth funding I suggest the Perth bid team led by David Hobbs ( Reds chairman) and CEO of the Professionals Group in WA & NT and who helped set up the very club Fremantle Dockers (you mentioned) would have some idea of the code's prospects.According to the WARL courtesy of Foxsports,the team is well on the way to building a $15m annual budget to run an NRL franchise. Brisbane 2 is too far behind Perth and CC ,especiallyas there is only a window a little over 18 months.they will no doubt get its opportunity ,as Brisbane is a rl city.

KOGs There will be no relocations unless a club needs it.The NRL under Gallop have stated so.Your 2 year crusade will not aller the matter.As the Sharks are in the throes of development agreemnt mode( having already attended one info night),i would suggest they will stay in situ. Any more corruption from officials more to the point.There is more chance of me winning Lotto,than the Storm playing silly b...s again. They will have more eyes watching them in that regard.,than Liz Hurley is receiving ATM>

Adelaide may have a little substance from your remarks.Perth you have no idea.The Reds were not a creature of Super league but the ARL.They were stymied by SL war.The Rams and Mariners were created by SL.A hell of a difference. Anycase I would put more credence on a consortium of business people,the local WARL and sponsors,than an off the cuff "stupidest decïsion" retort.

So Willy we just stagnate and remain in those states,and wonder why we get left behind.I don't want any more relocations,but I suggest expansion (new teams) brings in more high profile sponsors) and the game needs more money. It is not a case of trying to match other codes,but to grow the game according to our needs and those of the expansion areas,Adelaide IMO is way down the end of the queue. Gallop has stated any new area has to bring sonething that will benefit teh game as a whole,IOW it is not about pins on maps,but demand and cash input via TV.

I think that RL does have its place in both Adelaide and Perth but any expansion has to be sustainable This is where AFL have gone of track IMO. RL is blessed with expansion opportunities that other codes woud die for: Central QLD, Sunshine Coast, Brisbane, NZ, Central Coast, PNG, Adelaide and Perth to name a few. Certainly some of them are longer term prospects but for the immidiate expansion Perth, Centrral Coast, NZ and Brisbane would be the front runners. What are the chances of 4 teams??? Given that TV ratings for RL are massive having two extra games would bring in millions more in revenue. I read recently that another team from NZ would bring in an extra 50 million over five years as well as Perth bringing the same. A second Brisabane team will be fianacially successful from the start with a reprorted $10 million in sponsership as would be a NZ team. Perth and Central Coast I am not aware of the level of corporate support. The one thing we do not know is the criterions being used by the NRL to determine to determine each bid. It is very interesting time for RL indeed.

The NRL is under serious threat, lets make no mistake about it. The top players arent happy that the AFL players make much more money (while playing less games!) The only reason SBW, Hunt and Folau left was because of money. And I dont blame them at all, good on them, they only live once and in football an injury can end your career and turn you into a regular joe. Anyway, back to point. The NRL must look strategically and nationally just like the AFL does. The AFL is rolling in money so they know what theyre doing. We need to copy their methods but tweak it to suit our sport. They have expanded into 2 big RL markets. We need to expand into big rich markets which are untapped - Perth comes to mind. Thats 1.7 million people! Wouldnt it be strange if the NRL set up a shop in Brisbane (where they already have 2 teams in the SE Qld area). Wouldnt it be strange to put a team in little Gosford? Thus taking teams in NSW/ACT from 11 to 12?!?!?! Perth is a no brainer! Adelaide is 1.1million people as well, nothing to snivel at, and there is no Super 15 rugby presence for the NRL to compete with.

Okay not so much Bulldogs but Cronulla pulled out of coming to SA after a short stint. I would of said the Sharks first but they have already pulled out once. Logical though a Sydney team would/should move with a team for both Perth and Brisbane 2.

TJ, It it easy to make such a statement. But you need to put EVIDENCE in front of people to repudiate what I have stated. I have placed no misleading information on this forum at any time. I stand bye my research and the people that provided me with the information. I note that you have come onto this forum and placed just one comment, the above. Great input into this debate/discussion on your behalf.

PP - you have stated more misleading facts than anyone.

Oh I also leftout that, from what I have been able to research, that the no 1 sponsored football club is the Brisbane Broncos and the NO 1recognisable football team is the Melbourne Storm. Hardly backing up the AFL argument. Any way I have caused this tread to go off the topic.

James P who states that the AFL is the most popular sport in this country? Certainly not the majority people in this country. This debate has been on other treads and has been debated till we all we all go blue or red in the face. We are talking about WINTER sport here and there is no clear no 1 football code that domiinates in Australia. Certainly without a doubt cricket is the no 1 sport in this country. But the one thing I have taken from becoming involved with the ROAR site is the AFL and their supporters continue to run the line that they are the no 1 sport in Australia (no other sport tries this) when the evidence shows otherwise. It appears to be of such an importance to them it is as if you have given them an upper cut or tried to take away their boyfriend. I am not suggesting, for one minute, that RL,RU or FA. are no 1 either. I am sure the Union boys who dominate as Australia's no 1 international game would disagree with you. I am sure that the NRL would also disagree when they dominate both FTA and Pay TV. and outsell AFLl merchandiise. The AFL must be commended in the way they operate there properganda department and the Victrorians and and others take it hook line and sinker. You only need to look at EPL and NFL to gauge what it takes to be no 1 and they do not try to dominate and make false statments

Clipper and Big Ben you are not using my logic as Freamantle is not a stand alone city. It is 19klms from Perth and therefore cannot be counted as you have done. It appears that you argument is based soley on states and not regions. Your logic whilst good is floored. Using you logic Freamantle can be used to support you case yet is situated only 19klms from Perth. If this is your logic then Penrith 52klms is now in the equastion as is Parrammatta 22 klms. You see the point. The more you debate for Freeo the more I can then include Penrith and Parramtta.as stand alone cities. Yet again you want to disregard NQLD which is over 1000klms away from Brisbane and Newcastle a city of over 500,000 yet want to include Geelong and Fremantle. Sorry mate but your logic is way off. NRL is by defintion and by geography more national than AFL but if you work on Capital cities NRL 4 AFL 5 to AFL. Wow!! But that is not the case as we know it. Of course to muddy the water you have left out Auckland which is part of the NRL and will be counted as such in any debate. That makes under your criterion 5 each.

Why would the Bulldogs, one of the best supported and largest Sydney teams move? They have an appeal in Adelaide for the same reason they have an appeal in a lot of places, they are a big, famous, club. If a team gets relocated, it is because they are weak and need new fans etc. In most likely candidates in Sydney to require relocation and or to fold one day are: 1. Cronulla; 2. Sydney Roosters; 3. Possibily, though not really, Penrith. The best supported teams in Sydney, in general approximate order, would be: 1. Bulldogs; 2. Parramatta; 3. St George; 4. Wests Tigers. None of those four teams would move (especially as Wests Tigers are a merger already), as they have more than enough fans and support in Sydney.

Panther, My point was simply a reposnse to you saying that millionaires/billionaires are not breaking down the door to get in to the AFL. I then explained why that statement is completely false. i.e private ownership is not allowed by the AFL, and that if it was, you can bet your bottom dollar that investors would be fighting over themselves to get involved. It is after all the most popoular sport in the country, most clubs make profits and the AFL iteself makes huge profits off hundred of millions of dollars in revenue. What person (billionaire or otherwise, wouldnt want to invest...if they could) I take your point on Russel Crowe - he may very well stay in and bleed money. But if the going gets tough, he will bail. Billionaires become so becuase they dont like losing money. Tinkler has far more passion for the city of Newcaslte then he does with the Jets. Read some of the lead soccer articles today on this site and you wil see how he is making unilateral decisions... Another example are/were those American owners of Manchester United (i am not sure if they are still involved). Did they have passion? Or did they want to make a buck?

i like the idea of expansion but first let the rest of au know we have rl in au we from tasmania get no live games nothing in the local press the local rag has 6 pages of afl but no mention of the nrl i used to get the sunday telly to check the scores now that is not available in tassy union is getting a strong hold here the nrl wants to promote the game here as well your 4pm sunday game we get after midnight providing willie wonker and the choclate factory is not on that would get precedence wake up gallop au has 6 states 2 territories get with it cheers

Parramatta already have an all-seater stadium bigger than Hindmarsh. Pretty sure Aussie Stadium is fairly decent as well. Gold Coasts Skilled Park - turf aside - blows Hindmarsh out of the water. Bruce Stadium has a few issues - but is still far and away better than Hindmarsh in terms of capacity and undercover seating. In any case it doesn't really matter. What benefet is there for the NRL to put a team in Australia's poorest, least populated mainland state? Perth, much larger economy and growing rapidly in population, has to be a much higher priority.

I'd disagree because the Central Coast Bears actually do have a community based bid with financial and corporate clout. But alot of the noise being made there is by genuine supporters of the CCBEARS bid. The average joe so to speak.

Therefore PP, the list of cities where each sport has teams in Australia reads: NRL - Newcastle, Wollongong, Townsville, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne. AFL - Perth, Freemantle, Adelaide, Geelong, Melbourne, Sydney, Gold Coast, Brisbane, so using your logic it is a tie at 8 all.