Sharks, Pandas or Rams, just get us some NRL in Adelaide

the SA RL experiment is dead and buried - any further expansion will need to include at least 1 Brisbane team then a team from Mid QLD/NZ/WA/CC- Unless an existing team is willing to relocate i dont hink SA is on the NRL expansion radar.

Victoria just won the u/14 NSW Country championships beating Illawarra (Southern Zone). They have added more junior clubs recently (Melton Broncos, Eastern Raptors) to the VRL and playing numbers are on the up, along with schools development. They now have a great working relationship with the Storm. So not all bad.

The NRL needs stronger grass roots in these areas. Even VRL is poorly run. Maybe also take more games out of Sydney that are between, for example, Cronulla and North Queensland and move that to Adelaide. Actually, they should really only play sydney teams against each other in Sydney. Also, make the fixtures perminant like Souths V The Warriors in Perth. Make the teams travel there every year and try and get a following down there. I'd love to see Rugby League played more often in different places.. Then the kids from there will start following it and maybe play it THEN you have a generation of League supporters.

Sigh!! Perhaps I should be giving a full dissertation on the inner workings of the AFL TV negotiations,of which I know next to zero.Yet you guys were all ITK experts in predicting what the NRL, would secure in TV rights. The basics as I and more than a few rl people see it.: One party the NRL has content. Another party has the means to convey that content to a mass market,and additionally they have First & Last rights(going til 2024) for that content, which gives them the final whip hand to do so. The tie in, content(via FTA/Pay) and F&L is evident.No need to be at any negotiating table.No need for precognition.

"To even suggest otherewise ,is plain ." ...just a small sample of CCs fine, cogent prose.

Pot = black kettle much??? Try googling James Tamou, David Mead, Akuilia Uate and Peter Sterling.

That's the trouble my friend, trying tomake sense of your guff. The argument has been the NRL should have been able to negotiate a better FTA deal.My view and that has been supported by the likes of rl people,the most important thing(long term wise) was removing the F&L rights . Now you say yes the F&L rights impacted the ARLCs ability to negotiate and by definition that includes content.Hello!!! I rest my case,thank you linemen ,thank you ballboys..It either did or didn't . The last para ,you dont' know that at all,you are guessing.That smacks of arrogantly knowing the negotiation details,which you and I have no idea as to what ensued. In every deal such as these ,there is give and take.If there had been no F&L rights clause,the code could have shopped and bartered for FTA in a far stronger position,even to the extent of going to 10.To even suggest otherewise ,is plain .You can prattle on ,but remving F&L i9s a huge plus for the code.Ask the discretely removed form Fox Kim Williams.

I will agree with Crosscoder on the idea that New Zealand only needs one team in the NRL at the moment. Further expansion depends on the Warriors success. If they start winning one or two grand finals and maintain a top four or five placing within the next 5 seasons, then we can think about putting in another team. Its a bit like how the Broncos did. They enjoyed massive success for a sustained period and built themselves a popular brand. This allowed the Cowboys to come in to the comp on the back of that success. If the Broncos experiment had failed we would now have only one Queensland team in the comp today. In saying that I think Melbourne need another team. The Storm have been successful for a while now and one more team in Vic would do well for RL expansion. And to include that team in the comp we would have to cull a Sydney team or merge two teams Sydney teams together.

I don't even bother with the other troll but AR, the Roosters were accused of crowd fudging by the same organisation that makes all unsubstantiated accusations-the Daily Telegraph. Funny how Allianz is under the Sydney Cricket ground trust as with the SCG, yet somehow the Roosters manage to count their crowds, and the Swans can't at the SCG. Sheesh, talk about conspiracy theories. Hanging your hat of the Daily Telegraph. Where's the evidence? A new papers claims. Which land of the loonies do you & Tad (they already got that creepy Trex banned from league threads from his outright lies), so suppose won't be long before his new persona Tad is next) belong in? So where's your evidence on NRL crowd fudging AR? A newspaper? Come on, we've had the SCG Trust & ANZ stadiums shoot down these claims. Calling them liars too? Talk about conspiracy theories. I remember last year we had one of these newsltd shock jocks claim Souths attracted 45,000 at ANZ instead of the claimed 50,000. Could you make such a claim at the MCG? Would you know the difference by just looking at a 5,000 difference in crowd at such a large sized venue? These are the claims we must take as truth? Get real.

Cathar I don't see the point of that sort of mud slinging. The NRL is hardly a cleanskin on that front. The point you made earlier, was that the AFL must be fudging crowd figures. Now, that's fine if you want to run that point. But there's zero evidence of it - none - so it seems a little pointless getting narky about it. What we *do* know, is that there are plenty of examples where the NRL *has* fudged figures. This might appear as though it's a "code-war" comment - it's not. It's just a factual statement. So honsetly, if you feel the need to bag out the AFL...that's fine...but try to select something other than attendances as your focal point. I don't think *low crowds* are the thing keeping the AFL up at night.

"You say having a F&L deal did not impact the code’s abiltty to negotiate,shows you are living on another planet" Huh? Where did I say that? Try reading what I actually say. Yes - the F&L rights impacted the ARLC's ability to negotiate...with the parties that it may have wanted to. But no - the F&L rights did NOT impact the CONTENT of those negotiations (i.e. live FTA NRL on the telly).

I really don't get this argument. If the NRL was a national league it'd also be farcical to include a New Zealand team. The work hasn't been done and they're not ready for an NRL team, their is no obligation to tokenly place franchises in all major population hubs just due to a brand title. Perhaps try defend the NRL by talking about the play and not the ancillary nonsense it. Do empty seats and a comparatively low membership count really effect the viewing experience?

Seeing as the AFL happened to be brought up in this discussion by....,it is a comparison,I have to report .To suggest it is irrelevant is utter bollocks,when both codes had comparisons as to what they would get,areas covered etc etc ,this went on for ages prior to the Tv deals.Big Footy was also full of comparisons for starters. You say having a F&L deal did not impact the code's abiltty to negotiate,shows you are living on another planet.The deal would not have been made by the NRL without their removal,and that is point 1.They may as well have kept it there FFS. You nor I have no idea what the NRL demanded mate,you were not in attendance.Unless you have inside knowledge cut the BS. We fully understand the idea was to maximise the monetary value,which the code did,but to suggest they could have done better with FTA with that impediment is laughable.You appear to know little of the Williams v Murdoch imbroglio. In fact I dare suggest the contract to show on digital live was a concession by ch9,even though they currently treat it lightly.

Yes, there was 2 SANFL games on ANZAC day in Adelaide, both games got around 10k. The crowd average ATM for SANFL games this year appears to be around 4k. And BTW the palltry crowd between GWS and Port at Manuka was bigger than the paltry crowd at Campelltown to see Wests play Nth QLD in RL heartland.

Give us some more conspiracy theories cathar, we await your posts with a sense of hilarity.

AR, how do you know if the venues are responsible for crowd counting? Wouldn't venues want to be seen in the best of light attracting crowds for future funding? Non, bar Cronulla, own their own ground and are all managed by a stadium authority, so why wouldn't the NRL be in the same boat? The telegraph made these accusations and as usual they write what they want aka Brett Stewart, Bulldogs in Coffs. They get away with chipping away at the sport with impunity. The only recourse is fans not buying their papers, and players not speaking to their journos. Talk about following the line & being naive. I thought the tanking saga, police losing evidence in assaults against women, and Essendon doping would have finally opened the eyes of AFL supporters to the depths the code goes for image.

The crowd-fudging arguments are always a bit amusing. Several NRL clubs have been caught fudging over the years (the Titans and Raiders were regular culprits) and the automatic retort seems to be "well, the AFL must do it too!". For all AFL games, the venue reports the figures and these figures are calculated by how many individual tickets are electronically scanned in.

Fair enough. I agree that the next 2 teams should be Perth amd Bris2. But I don't agree that the ARLC should keep ignoring SA completely. Spend some grassroots money and, at the very least, put the damn game on telly!

CC, please, this is not about the AFL vs the NRL, or who was in a better bargaining position for their respective broadcast deals. All of that is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is about Channel 9's "first and last" rights and whether those rights impacted the ARLC's ability to demand (say) 4 live FTA games guaranteed per week. You say the two things ARE connected. That is utter nonsense. The ARLC didn't demand more live FTA games. It could have, but didn't. By not demanding more live FTA games, that meant the buying price went up (as the ARLC wanted it to), and in exchange, the broadcasting network (whoever that was going to be) retained control over when games would be shown. When the offers came in, Ch.9's "first and last" rights kicked in, and it was able to match the other offers. So the only thing that no guaranteed live games meant, was that Ch.9's eventual matching price, was higher than it would otherwise have been.

ATM Adelaide is way down the list of NRL expansion priorities.There is some interest there,but in reality minimal .They have grown their small grassroots base and need to continue to do so. There are no bids emananting from the state.The state with the loss of car manufacturing facilities will be feeling the pinch even further.I cannot for the life of me ,see the NRL pouring 10s of millions of the greenstuff into SA,just to be daring. To at least show that I am not blind to the idea,sometime down the line the NRL must have a team there.As the saying goes some things stand out like the proverbial:Perth Banana2 (the Hornets/Brothers).One heartland ,one new territory. The ARLC has made it abundantly clear,that the expansion issue will be revisited after the completion of this year's Grand Final. The prior NRL admin needs a right royal kick up the Kyber,for leading bid teams on,knowing no firm decision could be made till NRL finances were in order. The firm bids by areas(ie no team being parachuted in ) PNG financés.sponsorship,stadium crowds,juniors guaranteed ,plus full Govt backing. Perth Pirates sponsorship in place,a national sponsor ready to come in,juniors already involved in U18,stadium,Goivt support and media support indicated,financial backing.Time zone advantage for beaming back to the Easternb states. Brisbane Bombers(why not Hornets FFS) have the financial muscle,stadium and sponsors.Crowds question mark,but at least in heartland territory. Central Coast Bears,sponsorship,juniors,stadium TV ratings in heartland area.Question mark over another near Sydney /Newcastle team I have no idea of the extent of Ipswich/Central Qld/Brothers/Wellington NZ bids,but would suggest CQLD by virtue of small population is risky and Wellington NZ because IMO one is enough ATM there . What needs to be done ,is for the NRL to pressure ch9 Adelaide (ownd by Nine entertainment) to duly follow contractual requirements. Show the bleeding game on digital.