The NRL needs new teams and old stadiums

That is true in the southern and Western states,but it hasn't in reality in Qld and NSW consistently been so.If you are a rusted on AFL fan based on the Southern crowds that should also apply to the Northern areas when teams are down the ladder .It doesn;t meaning one could suggest it is more about winning than the appeal of the game. I think you need to have a look at NRL crowds at Suncorp and ANZ at times not often but it has happened ,so suggesting "has never really had what you would call large crowds" is plain wrong .You cannot generalise.If you had stated a few large crowds,I would agree,you didn't. All codes have their good and bad points,so I am not getting sucked into a code war setup.Except to affirm that indeed AFL has historical large crowds in the AFL states. I'm sorry to report,that judging by numbers not all people who watch the game in Sydney or Brisbane for the first time, get that enamoured.,else the grounds would be sellouts week in week out.There have been some ordinary crowds by AFL standards not only in the Nthn States but Melbourne of late for some clubs. People in the North have had the opportunity to watch live AFL before Fox came into vogue for ages on a saturday.That has not resulted in decent Tv ratings or continual packed stadiums.If not for SL and the Bears and Souths getting thrown out,who knows the situation with the swans hypothetically. It depends on the game itself if it is close and fast the atmosphere rises.The game being one sided not so.I attended a 14,000 plus game at a packed Remondis Sharks v Roosters,the atmosphere there you could cut with a knife.There have been some terrible NRL games. oh and in the NRL there is such a thing as catching the bomb,and scoring tries with a player's body completely over the sideline and his hand touching down with the ball to score a try from an impossible position.And every pl;ayer has the opportunity to put his body on the line ,to score a try. I can assure you once ANZ hopefully is brought to a proper rectangular stadium with more cover and cover for Allianz,crowds will improve .MOnday nights is the biggest drawback ATM for the NRL.And Perth with an NRL team will further improve crowds. BTW as an aside how much do you think the NRL will get in the next TV deal.?

Aussie Rules has always drawn very large crowds, especially on a comparative basis (i.e. per capita). It's been that way for a hundred years in WA, Vic, SA and even Tassie. And this very long track record of large crowds has more recently transferred over to NSW/QLD in the form of the Swans and Lions (from time to time). Compare that to RL which has never really had what you could call 'large' crowds - Smith is aiming to deliver crowd levels that the game has never achieved. That's the difference. In season 2018 the AFL will have a new 60K stadium in Perth which will deliver some huge crowds. Currently Subiaco isn't big enough to host the derby or the games against the bigger teams. So what you'll see from 2018 is even larger crowds from the AFL. Writing large AFL grounds off as a 'Melbourne phenomenon' is just ignorant. Again, it's the game itself. Anyone who attends a game will see how engaged and how loud the crowd is - riding every play, cheering the marks and the goals. There's a lot going on. People I know who see it for the first time remark that they can't believe how good the atmosphere is at the game. It's not the media- it's the game.

We are told the game is better watched live than on TV ,that is a starting point. The media in those AFL states also play a big part in promoting the code. Hell the Storm v Broncos played a trial in Hobart and filled that ground ,in a non rl State. Also crowds at Lions,GC are dropping to alarming levels.GWS crowds have not shifted greatly and they get more than a decent run in the media(payment perhaps?) and Tv ratings in the Northern states despite the Swans being in Sydney since the early 80s are still abysmal. So ATM its not Sydney nor Brisbane phenomenom,and $20m pa hasn't changed that view. There also has been some ordinary crowds in Melbourne particularly involving Carlton.Maybe they are also fickle. Yes their(AFL) crowds are bigger,but please there have been numbers of games that AFL commentators have described as dour.Making out the fast unpredictable patterns etc etc ,high marking as the be all and plenty of scoring is not always the panacea.Some complain there are too many players on the field ,running around in circles,the one point behind score,the frustration with fumbling,the lack of constant collisions.Yes rugby league has some issues to deal with on play. There are numbers of Sydney siders who have attended Swans matches by virtue of business contacts,tickets over the many years.That has not translated into sold out SCG week in week out.The numbers attending ANZ matches have dropped significantly.Despite all the promotional money spent ,via print and electronic marketing. Lots of behinds,and one sided games with plenty of scoring can also be a turnoff. Until the NRL can get the ANZ made a proper rectangular stadium with decent cover and decent cover with Allianz,plus throw in scheduling that appeals to families ,crowds will always be where they are ATM.And ditto suburban grounds. Brisbane has shown they can get decent NRL crowds,regardless of the Broncos position.

And Adelaide? And Perth? And Tasmania? And the Sydney Swans? And the Brisbane Lions? AFL crowds are not just a 'Melbourne phenomenon' though this is commonly claimed. Granted that the Swans/Lions are relatively fickle supporters, but it's an undeniable fact that the AFL has demonstrated it's capacity to pull huge crowds in all states not just Victoria. And why? Well if you've ever attended an AFL game you'd agree that it's the game itself - fast, unpredictable patterns of play, high marking, plenty of scoring. There's a lot of excitement at an AFL game and they've always pulled big crowds for generations, in Victoria and in all the other states. It's the game itself than generates the interest and the high crowd numbers in all the markets where it's played. It might be comforting to convince yourself this is all a 'Melbourne phenomenon' but you'd be wrong. I do agree with you that RL supporters should stop comparing NRL to AFL crowds - this is a product of the media I think. Crowds for RL have always been much smaller than Aussie Rules but not much attention was ever paid to it but now it's a media hobby horse.

And how many years ago was that? All the NRL needs is a niche market in Perth,crowd averages 12,000 plus,games beamed live back to Sydney to maximise Tv ratings. it's funny how if you have a team ,the population or at least a decent number become aware of its existence. The Reds were not the SL Vietnam,as they paid all the accommodation and travel for visiting teams,and were flicked due to SL peace deal.That was nearly 20 years ago.If it wasn't the code's/Red's Vietnam then,it has less chance of being so now. And crowds around 20,000 of late and even 12,000 in 2013 when it poured down,suggests there are a lot of "Viet Cong" running around in Perth.

I worked in Perth for 10 years. Most locals are unaware there are two rugby codes. West Coast and Fremantle take the major slice of the pie for media coverage and especially corporate sponsorship. The scraps would be left for the NRL and the Western Force to fight for. Perth would become the NRL's Vietnam.

Stadiums and crowds have been issues in the NRL for decades. As far as crowds go I think everyone should take a chill pill. The NRL is the biggest attended (average game wise) domestic Rugby or RL competition in the world. It outdraws both the UK and France Rugby comps and compares well with Football comps in comparative sized countries. We continually compare ourselves to the AFL which we shouldn't. Melbourne's culture is to attend sporting events of every type. They get massively bigger crowds down there for racing, tennis, golf and just about anything than anywhere in the world per head of population. As far as stadiums go I believe we should have a mix of both boutique suburban grounds and big stadiums in the city, Homebush and probably Parramatta. The govt. is apparently going to spend up to 1.2 billion on stadiums from the electricity sell off. They should spend half on upgrading the existing big stadiums and the rest on building 20 to 25 thousand capacity all seat, covered stadiums in at least 3 current suburban locations. Maybe Brooky, Leichardt and Penrith. They could base them on some of the Pommy Super League grounds. The crowd is right on top of the action and the atmosphere is unreal even with only 10 or 15 thousand there . Big drawing games could be moved to the closest big stadiums. I reckon that would be the perfect mix.

I don't like the possibility of have a 2 tier system like the super league, but you make a great point about any possible expansion and the stadium policy.

Storm and Dogs got 12,000 in 2014,in terrible wet conditions.Suggesting there is a decent base on which to work. Titans have their well publicised problems with the COE and pricing.The commercial base on the GC is nowhere near what's available in Perth,and the junior numbers are about the same.

There was not much room left at the ground,that's why more stand/seating is needed there. Atmosphere and no of families in attendance fantastic. It was against the Roosters hence a good crowd,Would have been 18-20,000 packed out against Souths our Dragons.

I agree the NRL needs to have fewer teams and a shorter season that will provide more quality with a move perhaps to 25 min quarters etc? Not sure, however what this means is that 16 teams or less is ideal and increasing to 20 for example would dilute the comp affecting quality etc. I suspect the NRL will create a division 1 and 2 much like superleague UK with 10 or 12 teams in each division. This will cater for expansion and create the quality we the fans are looking for. Division two is for rebuilding teams like parra and Wests who need time in a lower division to get everything in place to fight for promotion. With this in mind stadium policy is very complex. My view is to build bespoke stadiums in select locations allowing ground share with an additional larger stadium for the more popular games, internationals etc. guess my point is until the games strategy is known the structure of the game in the future it will be almost impossible to decide on stadium strategy? I don't envy the NRL. I sense there will be much pain (needed) for the game to move forward.

I find it laughable that on Sunday when interviewed by Johns, Lyall Gorman said he was expecting a good crowd, which he was hoping to be around 12 to 13k. Luckily the end total was mid 14k.

And my answer to you is that the Rabbitohs have attracted a home crowd higher than 17,000 two times of five this season. Now, before you get started about how the Rabbitohs can't attract crowds I will mention again that the majority of the Rabbitohs supporter base are now located in South Western Sydney and that Allianz Stadium is not a viable option as the facilities (parking in particular) are poor. Redfern Oval also has a much smaller capacity than 17,000 at an estimated 5,000, ruling out Souths' traditional home as an option. The Bulldogs have attracted a home crowd higher than 17,000 five times of six this season. Yes, all of those matches have been played against Sydney clubs but is Belmore Sports Ground really the best facility to take Bulldogs home games to? I think not. As a Bulldogs supporter, I am looking very forward to heading to our traditional ground in July when we take on the Sharks but to move all of our home games to Belmore would be silly. I think Belmore could be a nice alternative to ANZ for 1-2 games a year for games that are not expected to attract crowds over 15,000. The rarity of Belmore games will allow for a guaranteed sell-out crowd of 18,000 each time the Bulldogs play a regular season game at the ground as it is a great experience for members and fans of the club as well as for opposition fans.

Points taken Riley, My question to you however is how often do the Bunnies and Dogs get more than 17000 to a game. The answer is not very often.

NRL ratings in Perth may be poor, but that could very well be because: - They don't have their own team - Games are shown at odd times - They are often shown on secondary channels If Perth had their own team and the TV deal meant that all their games were live on FTA, I'm sure we'd see a much better result.

will get more than the glory

Lots of Souths fans and kiwis at the game.Maybe they should try a game like between Manly and Canberra and try it more than once a year. See how many are really interested. Remember the NRL are finding it tough elsewhere like at the Titans, which is in a league area.

Judging on TV by the number of Souths fans there ,it was more like 80% Rabbitohs fans. The so called rugby fans in Perth, are hardly supporting matches involving the Force

It is rather simple, to determine where you play it should be based on the expected attendance, made up of past games attendances and other factors. If the game is more than likely to sell-out a suburban ground move the game to a bigger venue, if the game is not going to fill a suburban ground keep it at that ground. Souths v Rooster, Bulldogs v Eels normally has estimated (28,000+) attendance play them at ANZ. Manly v Cowboys 12,000 play at Brookvale. The system is not perfect but it gets attempts to find a balance because each debate for and against has good points.

If the NRL can't make a team work on the Gold Coast , then Perth will be harder. A once a year game in Perth is not a good indicator of success. A big kiwi population in Perth and the popular south Sydney helped with the crowd. NRL TV ratings in Perth are consistently poor. Perth is a big risk and it's been tried before.