Sydney's population can sustain its NRL clubs

It's really not that hard to work out. Tonight is Saturday there is AFL on free to air, no NRL. NRL is broadcast in 576PI standard definition with looks like crap on a 80 inch TV AFL in in High def 1080PI just as is Sorcerer on SBS . My TV Is capable of 4 x times that. Consistent changes to the rules, girl changes like shoulder charges. One day it is ok one day it's not. If your going to make a change do it like Cadbury Fredos, gradually. Players have no reason to stick with a club that invested heavily in their talent but once turning pro stick the finger up at that "Josh Dugan" and some many other Canberra player. If there are commercial reasons for trade then keep that behind closed doors. Rugby Union is a gentlemans game played by thugs, NRL or rugby league is a thugs game played by gentlemen look at Jarrod Hayne for example, alwats wanted to play NFL but never had the education.....

If you look at it from the point of simple demographics then nine teams in Sydney is quite logical if you are prepared to ignore the strange situation in Brisbane. Greater Sydney has about 4.6 million and has nine teams just over half a million per team.That is pretty much in line with Newcastle and Canberra, and indeed North Qld and the Gold Coast Obviously Melbourne has around 4.1 million but League is a minor sport there,League is pretty popular in Auckland which has around 1.3 million,but is still in competition with Union and even if you say support splits about fifty fifty (and it is probably more like 60/40 Union) that is still about on a par with per capita support in Sydney. So Brisbane is the exception to the rule,simple demographics suggest nine clubs in Sydney is about the right number.the issue really is there should be more clubs in Brisbane, that is the discrepancy on a per capita to team basis.

Fickle? I stopped following RL when they booted the rabbitohs from the comp and switched to Super Rugby. I support the rabbitohs and have watched the game since souths came back. I don't think that's being fickle.

this article is way too sydneycentric for me. "All Sydney NRL clubs are steeped in history and tradition"....... Brisbane also had a healthy competition and many historic clubs for many years until the NSWRL clubs kept taking players and ripping the guts out of it for the benefit of the NSWRL. the advent of the broncos opened the floodgates and the the horse has now bolted. there are too many sydney clubs and if expansion is to the benefit of the NRL and rugby league in australia then sydney clubs must go. brisbane has only one team in a rugby league capital city!...... the same number as AFL city melbourne. what the...? one gets sick of hearing the sydneycentrics (be they media or supporters or administrators) raving on about the rabbitohs, roosters, st george etc.

Yep and Central Coast is not Sydney restore the Bears to the competition!

Ummm I suggest you have a look at some facts Greg trilby, the Tahs and WSW are behind Souths, Parramatta and a few others, the tahs for over half their games this year didn't even bother to publish crowds, that's how good they were going. but then, you and a few others come along and change history which others start believing and all of a sudden, the tahs and wsw averaged higher than other teams when they did not. Then we look at the TV ratings where the Swans are lucky to get 50k watching them on FTA TV each week, 50k out of a population of near 5 million, yet they are the biggest team in NSW according to you and other people from other sports. If I didn't know any better, i'd believe the garbage continually spouted about RL at this site, but luckily for me, I look elsewhere and make sure I know what's going on before I start typing crap!

Geelong is not in Melbourne. End of discussion.

You say all Sydney clubs are steeped in history. As several of these are mergers you therefore accept their history isn't lost from those mergers. But then you say future mergers would be throwing away those clubs' histories. Which is it? Do the Tigers and Dragons now have no history or tradition - or would future mergers not erase history either? You want it both ways - at least for the Sydney clubs. You probably don't care about the history of the Souths Logan Magpies (106 yrs), central coast clubs, bathurst, dubbo, ipswich, coffs... Your article is just hypocritical Sydney dribble.

You may say that if the Rabbits go you do but deep down do you really think that is true ? Yes I do. I've already done it once. When souths were out I did not watch one game. League is a club based game. Any one that changes team alleigences is not a true supporter.

Please do some research when submitting an article. The AFL has 9-teams in Melbourne, not 10. A small error but one that should be avoided.

"That’s a simplistic view that you think AFL clubs have larger supporter bases just because they get bigger crowds." With the exception of the Swans, Giants and Lions, they absolutely do.

It will get the most out of having a team in both areas... and luckily the NRL know that.

Well in that case we should kick out about half the teams... as they contribute even less. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a Ronnie rant.

"Nobody shows up to Cronulla games anyway.." Yet they have a higher crowd average than Penrith, Canberra, Manly and the reigning premiers.... and this is the team coming dead last i might add. Doing a bit of research doesn't hurt before making silly statements.

Me too Craig Joubert, Rabbits Go I Go, and this has got nothing to do with not being a true RL supporter, I would still look at RL games on TV but I would never get involved and/or spend my money going to games. As it is it's very expensive to support any team when you are talking buying a jersey, tickets to games food at games and travel for the whole family. Most supporters these days just watch the games on TV and maybe get to 1 game a year if they are really keen

I don't mean "more supporters". By "level of support" I mean being more committed to supporting one's club by going to the game and/or signing up for memberships. If you follow a club and watch every game at home on the telly, that's fine - but you're not as committed as the bloke who attends live matches each week. The Wanderers have less supporters than the Eels, but they arguably have a greater level of support from the diehards.

Not to mention that the actual suburbs the AFL clubs are 'from' are basically meaningless. You are as likely to find a Richmond supporter living in Carlton as you are to see them living in Richmond.

I went to Melbourne last week and was amazed how close all the actual suburbs are to each other though. Probably 7/9 of those teams are a 5min team of each other and all 5mins to either major stadium. It's a city absolutely made for big crowds. Unlike here were two local beach teams cronulla and manly are close to a 90min drive apart with Easts a 45min split between the two

The big difference is that. Afl dominates Melbourne with the 9 clubs being the 9 best attended teams in the city. The 9 nrl teams are not - they don't even have the best attended team. The swans waratahs wsw are all ahead and Sydney is becoming more sports diverse so while it is still the most popular rl is not as dominant