Things I would do if I were NRL CEO

C'mon matt Isn't it a little silly to mock the GWS v Syd rivalry when the Giants are only 2 years old, but happen to have more members than 8 of the NRL clubs you listed above?

Based on a 20 team expansion as mentioned in the article, best way to split it would be: North - broncos, Brisbane 2, cowboys, titans, central qld East - Newcastle, Manly, CC, Roosters, Rabbits West - Perth, Eels, Panthers, Dogs, Tigers South - Dragons, Canberra, Melbourne, NZ, Sharks The above splits makes the best derby scenarios. North being all QLD, East has bunnies v roosters, CC and Newcastle is a great new rivalry, Bears and Manly have serious history and so do manly and Newcastle. Western derbies are a no brainer and south has dragons v sharks and Melbourne and NZ have a growing tension as well.

I'm not sure if I want conference or division systems, but if they did go with it and with adding 2 new teams, I think a fair and effective way would be to do 3 divisions of 6 teams: Northern: Broncos, Titans, Cowboys, Brisbane Brothers (let's say as my pick of the bunch), Knights and Sea Eagles Western: Tigers, Eels, Bulldogs, Panthers, Rabbitohs, and Perth Pirates Southern: Roosters, Dragons, Storm, Warriors, Raiders, Sharks Geographically it splits them up pretty evenly, there are always going to be 3 teams with a big travel burden (Cowboys, Warriors and Perth), but it minimises this. There are short distance trips for every team apart from these 3 (or the shortest possible trips). Just about every team has at least some major rivals in it's group. Playing own group twice and other groups once would give 24 games, which would be quite ok with me for one.

Haha that's good too actually.

I agree with the concept of divisions, but think that the dvisions themselves are a bit out of whack. There should be a "Foundation Division" - Roosters, Rabbitohs, Tigers, Bulldogs (yes I'm aware St. George aren't foundation and nor, technically, are the Tigers). Sydney Division - Manly, Parra, Sharks, Bulldogs, Penrith Regional Division - Dragons, Newcastle, Canberra, Central Coast Queensland Division - Broncos, Titans, Cowboys, Central Qld/Ipswich, Brisbane 2 New Division - Perth, Warriors, Wellington, Melbourne Of course, all of this is contingent upon there being a 20 team comp, which I'm not sure there needs to be. If you stretched the comp to a more reasonable (and likely) 18 teams you could have three divisions of six playing over 24 rounds. I'm not convinced of the need for a Central Coast team or a Wellington team. That leaves a team from either Ipswich or Central Queensland and Perth. I'm not convinced of the need to break Brisbane up. Why jeopardise a successful club by splitting the market? It's not as if it would bring in a lot of new supporters as most supporters of "Brisbane 2" would come at the expense of the Broncos. In my opinion expansion should be about opening new markets, not splitting old ones. Sydney Division - Tigers, Souths, Roosters, Bulldogs, Parra, Manly Regional Division - Canberra, Dragons, Newcastle, Warriors, Penrith, Sharks New Division - Brisbane, NQ, Central Qld/Ipswich, Titans, Melbourne, Perth I think if you spoke to most Tigers fans, regardless of whether they are "Wests" or "Balmain" supporters, they would see their rivalries more with Souths, Parramatta, Roosters and Manly than with Penrith or the Dogs. Parramatta really sits on the border of the "Inner West" and "Outer West", and Wests Tigers are half "Inner" and "Outer", with it still being a very long trip to Penrith for a "local derby". Same with Sharks, it's a very long trip to any ground from Cronulla, with the exception of Kogorah and (less so) Illawarra. This is why I put them as they "Out of Sydney Sydney team". Unfortunately any mix that you put together looks imperfect, so another alternative would be to place teams in alternating divisions based upon where they finish the regular season - 1st goes into Div 1, 2nd into Div 2, 3rd into Div 3 and so on down the competition. This would then provide a further incentive to finish the season in one of the top three positions, as the nearest competitor from that year would be three places lower on the ladder. But yeah, a divisional system looks good, as much to keep the season to a manageable length with an expanded amount of teams.

your right about the state of origin…..it prob wouldn't work a 15 round comp will be way more enjoyable than a 26 round comp….the matches will be more meaning full, crowds will be bigger…..it will be more cut throat . IF international league was developed/promoted properly it could be huge in 10 years 20 years ago Union only had a handful of countries playing the game…..now the likes of Argentina are actually competitive….only because they were given the opportunity to compete with the Big boys. the 100 point hidings have now disappeared if league admin grew some balls and did the same with france PNG Samoa tonga fiji etc we would have a strong international scene ……instead thos teams only play every 2 or 3 years rather than playing 7 or 8 times a year …..pointless. Its why international league is dull and boring and going nowhere

Forget the bears , merge sharks and tigers move them up to the central coast to become the cc tiger sharks, since we half theyre players anyway, there is so many sharks and tigers supporters up here that there would so many members it would be crazy!!

Sorry, what I meant was that you said they get a lot of 'away' fans and I was using that as evidence that it's an easy stadium to get to. What you have to Remember is that for CC fans to get to a game they have up to 90 minute drive to Broadmeadow, or up to 90 minute drive to SFS, so Gosford's position is very convenient. In fact, I would even suggest that CC Stadium is even more convenient for Upper North Shore (Hornsby, Berowra etc) fans then SFS or ANZ. The thing about CC or Newcastle is that they are more tribal than Sydney. People have moved around Sydney so much that the clubs' traditional boundaries have lost some meaning. But the regional towns are a lot more parochial. In regards to rivalry, it is a bit different to GWS. The coast already has a rich history of rivalry with Newy and the Bears brand and history with the Sea Eagles is explosive.

Thats pretty much management 101

cheers for the members numbers, funny thing i tried to look up comparisons on the NRL website, no numbers only how to buy one. i found rd 1 numbers so 8000 (roughly) isn't to bad here are the rd 1 numbers Membership Numbers for Clubs Rabbitohs – 27,543 Broncos - 22,165 Dragons – 15,615 Knights - 14,456 Eels – 13,675 Bulldogs – 13,035 Storm - 11,813 Roosters – 12,963 Cowboys - 10,536 Sea Eagles – 10,123 Panthers – 8,255 Warriors - 6,679 Sharks – 6,812 Titans - 7,409 Tigers – 6,497 Raiders - 6,698 so its not too bad but still... it does pretty well for a team that doesn't play Never said the ground was easy to get to, for me to catch a train from mine to bluetounge( or whatever it will be next year) would take 3 hours or 1.5 from central. it's a fair hike up the M1 for most sydneysiders. as for crowds i think having a couple of game a year verses a team permanatly based there makes a huge difference to crowd numbers. look at perth, they get a couple games a year and people turn up, if you know its going to be on again next week you do't turn up in the rain for a game(personally i like rainy games, shorter queues for beer). catchment might be bigger than the mountian men but the city clubs have no juniorsor catchment and seem to do ok, geographical area is no longer the main factor for people choosing a side. in m family we have three bunnies, roosters, panthers, eels, storm and not proud to say it a manly fan. derbies... well just because you have a local rival doesn't make a great rival cough cough.... Sydneyv GWS.... cough cough. i used to love the Manly/ newcastle games 97 Gf was one of the best games i've ever watched

Or they could leave it as is and continue to get sell outs every game...

Exactly. And the old excuse of "If you aren't willing to crawl over hot coals to watch your team play in a hurricane than you're not a true fan." is just silly. Even the most die hard supporters won't go to all games.

http://www.centralcoastbears.com.au/ - Top right hand corner. Can't miss it. Not bad for a team that doesn't actually exist. No one could say with any certainty what attendance would be like, but considering they show up for out of town teams, one would assume they would show up for their own team. After all, even you suggested that it is convenient for away fans to travel to. Not to mention it is conveniently located next to both the station and the leagues club. As for Penriff, that's exactly my point. The Bears catchment stretches from Lake Macquarie to Milsons point. A much bigger heartland area than poor old Panther Town. The other beneifts are that it would create a local derby for both Manly and Newcastle. As well as, getting back the territory that was lost to union.

where do you get your figures for memberships sold?what are they actually buying? attendance is a little sketchy as people can come from anywhere, away fans and fans of "local teams" (manly, souths).bums on seats is no guarantee that people will turn up week in and week out. no arguing about catchment size but culture is an intangible. no way to measure correctly. the GC is also heartland but not many turn out for their games, ditto the rifth. a great example was given on a different article about tasmania and AFL. it compaired the two as heartland but the powers that be know it will never move away. as a fan of the firbros my heart goes out to the bears as they copped a raw deal by the NRL and manly (wasn't that a great merger) but the CC won't get a team unless some one else relocates

I think the stand-alone State of Origin idea would work, but you'd have to put it on a Friday night. Friday draws the best crowds for regular NRL matches, so it'd be the same for Origin.

Hahahaha

The World Cup or Olympics definitely sucks oxygen from other domestic sports (probably to a slightly lesser degree in Australia) but I think the effect on attendances for local sport would be pretty negligible.

Firstly, I said "would probably" and secondly, I'm basing it on their memberships sold already, the attendance record of CC Stadium, the size of the catchment and the culture of the area - of which I am very familiar

Yeah, it's probably unlikely to have an effect on die hard leaguies who don't like Football, that's absolutely true Kingcowboy.

I'd be happy with just 15 premiership rounds per season. Since media rights money covers player salaries one could assume that a reduced season length would only lower a club's operating costs. If fewer rounds means more quality rounds, then, again, it is reasonable to assume greater crowds per game. I don't know about the costs-benefits analysis on that but until one is done, then it seems reasonable to me. State of Origin could feature a squad, rather than just 17 or 18 players. This would not only add an income stream for those extra players who make the squads but also cover your 'players haven't played' concerns. As for Test football, you only need the Big Three to be playing each year for the international scene to be successful. The potential of tapping into international money ought to be obvious. Whether 2nd and 3rd tier nations can get flogged by NRL teams is not an argument against the big three playing each year.