What the NRL needs in 2017

It's three hours during daylight savings but two the rest of the year. Prime time east coast coast is only relevant if the TV networks want to show that team. Given 9s reluctance to show teams like Canberra, Newcastle, Warriors, etc who have been in the comp for 20+ years I can't see them falling over themselves for a fortnightly Perth Pirates game.

@The Barry, you'd ideally have the Perth home game in the afternoon so it is prime time on the east coast. Plus aren't they 3hrs behind, so they'd get a game time that all Sydney supporters have been pining for.

Waratahs boss says RU can easily surpass NRL and junior league. "One has a really bad problem with sideline violence etc etc. One hasn't." http://www.espn.com.au/rugby/story/_/id/18512420/waratahs-boss-andrew-hore-slams-aussie-rugby-communist-state

Someone must dislike The Sharks immensely. They had more than 60% growth in memberships, and The Telegraph still has a down arrow alongside their name. The Tigers aren't even on the list.

Sort of. A 7.30 WA kick off would mean a 9.30 east coast kick off. While it would be live the second Friday night game isn't prime time on the east coast. It would also only be in that time slot every second week. I can't see the 9.30 time slot every second week involving a WA team every time generating enough viewers on the east coast to warrant a sufficient increase in TV revenue to cover costs. That's without taking into account the additional travel costs that would be incurred. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a WA team but I don't think it's as straight forward as people think.

Yeah memberships aren't dwindling and we can't have a longer season.

@ andrew "Did losing North Sydney hurt the competition in the long run?" I would say it has hurt the NRL. It wasn't a critical hit, but it has hurt them. To see why, you only need to look at where the heartlands for Rugby and AFL are in Sydney. That's right - the North Shore. There now exists a million-strong blackhole between the Harbour Bridge and Lake Macquarie that would still be a League town if not for the Bears demise. I'm not saying relocating shouldn't happen, but it's very difficult to manage and get right. @Baz "The TV networks only have so many prime time slots to broadcast footy so once those time slots are filled, extra games are superfluous and won’t attract the same revenue" That's only half true. Currently the NRL has all their prime time slots covered, but only on the East Coast. They don't currently have any timeslots for the West Coast covered. It's okay to have games overlap if all markets are being catered for.

I agree that 18 teams is too many for any professional competition in Australia, 14-16 is ideal. The NRL may have to take a huge risk with relocation and obviously weigh up the benefits of doing that vs keeping the team in its traditional area.

Eq; Relocating hurts, no doubt - you only have to look at what is happening in the NFL (all be it a different model). But sooner or later, you have to pull the band aid off. Did losing North Sydney hurt the competition in the long run? No, it didn't, if anything it helped. Relocating taking some lessons from the Brisbane Lions is the way to go in my opinion. A club relocates to Perth retaining a couple of home games in Sydney plus a heavy away draw in Sydney and realistically the traditional fan can still get to 8-10 games. Once the WA supporter base is well established you fade out the Sydney home games.

Clubs get (I think) 65% of the TV revenue so the TV deal needs to be more like an extra 30 mill per year. I remember reading a while back that for 2018 the salary cap is expected to be 10M and club grants 13M so that would equate to an extra 40M in TV revenue. The TV networks only have so many prime time slots to broadcast footy so once those time slots are filled, extra games are superfluous and won't attract the same revenue. eg a 3.00pm saturday time slot is worth less than a 7.30pm Friday time slot. Expansion should be looked at but its not a laydown misere. And that's before you look at the impact on the quality of the product.

@ andrew, You raise fair questions and I don't have the answers. My feeling is yes, the extra game each round would cover the cost of two new teams, because TV networks need live sport to keep viewers as more and more people are switching to streaming services, so they are willing to pay a high price for the content that they pass onto advertisers. I've also been a vocal skeptic of the idea that there just aren't enough decent players to field extra teams. If that were true than our sport would be in a critically endangered position. The sport isn't where it was 20 years ago. there's a lot more unity and professionalism in the game now. If an increase in teams leads to an increase in money (which I believe it will), the opportunity to push salary caps higher means the NRL is in a better position to take advantage of the growing playing stocks in the UK, Pacific Islands and North America, not to mention Australian and International Rugby. I believe your suggestion of relocating teams carries a lot more risk than expansion as it carries a high potential of alienating more existing fans than the new fans it brings in. As a North Sydney Bears fan I can attest to that.

Epiquin, My counter would be, Yes TV revenue potentially goes up with an extra game to broadcast however does it go up enough to fund two new clubs? What do clubs currently get $9.1million a season? So are you looking at at least another $20 million per year, probably more given they are start up organisations. Will any change to a deal cover that? maybe maybe not. More games isn't always better. The NRL/ARL have expanded before - it hurt the competition. When the comp had 20 teams in 1995, the bottom 4 teams combined for 13 wins in the whole season. There are no numbers to suggest there is a greater depth of talent than there was before. If anything, competitive playing numbers (not including the touch numbers) have dropped. So even if you could make the case you have enough players for 18 teams today (which we don't), there isn't enough coming through to fill 18 quality teams in 3 years. You can broaden the reach of the game without diminishing the product by relocating clubs.

Yeah... memberships are dwindling alright... http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/teams/clubs-to-break-nrl-membership-record-with-more-than-300000/news-story/513658d9d7df7d73c2bc863014d5c8b6

Exactly. I think there's been a bit of a swing in general for sports fans that they are more attracted to "events" rather than the drudgery of a normal game. It needs to be about turning these games into big events to get people excited. There's just so much choice now for sports fans that they are becoming a lot more discerning.

With regards to the crowds, the fact that 2015 and 2016 were similiar is pretty good, considering there were Monday and Thursday games most weeks!

Are you serious? You want a 30 game long season? Plus Origin, plus internationals, plus trials? Would be good to see so many players go down and half strength squads fielded the whole time.

I disagree andrew, obviously I'm not privy to the same knowledge the NRL has, but I think there is definitely evidence it will work. An extra game each round (assuming there are two teams added) means the value of the TV product immediately goes up. TV audiences have grown outside the traditional markets. Exposure to new markets (assuming they expand to Perth and NZ), means the game is more sustainable. I'd say the case for expansion is pretty strong. The only real negatives are the unknowns.

The NRL cant expand unless sydney clubs are relocated, mainly because they wont extend the season to accommodate the extra games needed to make the premiership fairer. The outright refusal to go back to home & away draws for each team demonstrates the domination by TV rights over NRL clubs and fans.No wonder memberships are dwindling.

A scandal-free season Always important, but it's not just about the scandals but the types of scandals. I think there are certain scandals that the public are willing to forgive, like the 'party-boy' kind of stuff, but assaults, especially relating to women are always bad news for the game. A future plan Obviously there were some definite failures in the ARLC's 5 year plan, but I don't think it's catastrophic. They may not have hit their benchmarks, but memberships have increased a lot. Crowds have stagnated, but they're not haemorrhaging like some people will have us believe. More TV money in the coffers than ever before. All games live. New Stadiums. I kinda think that Dave Smith was a little bit hamstrung by internal politics and found it very difficult to achieve what he had planned. Clubs are still running the show, despite the fact that a majority simply have no idea what they are doing. I attended both Souths and Wests home games last year and the difference between the match day experiences was pretty stark. I definitely think the NRL needs to centralise a lot of stuff currently being performed by clubs. To acknowledge competitors The biggest thing they can do here is improve how they recruit and develop juniors. I know a lot of kids that have grown up on League, but ended up with a Sherrin in their hand through school etc. The Swans academy is so professional and so enticing for parents that they can't help but kish their kids towards AFL, even though they are Leaguie's themselves. A great playing year No doubt exciting play is good for the game, but let's also stop talking about the refs after every match. They are going to get calls wrong. Its time we dealt with it.

There is actually no evidence that I can see that expansion would work. I agree there needs to be a team in Perth. I disagree that it should be an expansion team, because there is nothing to suggest the game has the capacity to expand the number of teams it fields at the moment.