Apart from a 90-metre intercept try in the dying minutes to win the game, nothing seems to quite get an NRL fans heart racing quite like the topic of expansion.
We all want to see the game not just survive, but grow, in an increasingly competitive sporting market. With AFL and A-League stronger than ever in the Sydney market, it might seem strange then that the answer is to reduce the number of Sydney teams.
Consider this your warning, what you will find below may be deeply offending to fans of certain clubs, and downright heresy to rugby league traditionalists, but could it be a long-term workable solution?
Growth: Expand or relocate?
If we agree that the game needs to grow, then we are hit with the question of how. Do we have the talent to support an additional two teams?
The answer from those who know the game the best, the players, seems to be no. Whether this is true or not is the subject of another debate for another day, so for the sake of this article let’s assume this is true and there is not 60 extra top-grade players we can dig up over the next few years.
The other issue with moving to an 18-team competition, is that although we get an extra game to sell, we also have an extra game to pay for.
There are questions over whether adding an extra game each week into the schedule would actually increase the value of the next broadcast deal, considering the extra costs to put that game on, especially if these teams were based in new markets that don’t have existing rugby league infrastructure to support it.
So if the competition doesn’t expand, do I think teams should relocate? In short, no. I don’t believe any new market would accept a relocated club, especially if a Sydney team were to be moved to Brisbane.
Instead, I believe if we want this great game to survive and grow, we must introduce brand new teams in new markets, while reducing the number of Sydney teams.
In saying that, a team on the chopping block should be given the option to relocate, if they can prove to the NRL they have a strong business model showing that the relocation will result in a successful club, and not another failed team.
Peter ‘Block-Rockin’ Beattie was in favour of expansion, then he wasn’t. (Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)
The suspects
Who is safe and who is at risk? First of all I think it is clear that all of the teams outside of Sydney are safe. If teams are to forced out of the NRL, it will be one of those from the crowded Sydney market.
So to look at what clubs are at risk, let’s first of all look at a key statistic that the NRL would surely take into account – how many paying members does the team have?
At the end of the day, the NRL must remain a profitable business, so it cannot risk kicking out a club like the Souths and risk losing all those paying members.
South Sydney Rabbitohs 30947
Parramatta Eels 23890
Penrith Panthers 19585
St George Illawarra Dragons 18681
Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs 18667
Wests Tigers 15502
Sydney Roosters 15393
Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks 14227
Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles 12635
*Membership average 2014-2018
As we can see in the above, there is a vast difference in membership numbers between the top and bottom Sydney clubs, and it is no surprise the clubs at the bottom are those that are most often mentioned when relocation comes up.
The Tigers, Roosters, Sharks, and Manly simply have fewer people willing to pay to support them, and this is the first mark against their names.
However paying members are only a part of the wider fan-base of an NRL team. In fact, as the majority of the NRL’s money comes from eyes-on-screens rather than bums-on-seats, it’s fair to say that the more supporters a team has, the more people will watch their games, and the less likely that they will be removed.
How many Roosters fans are there really? (Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
Getting an accurate measurement of how many supporters a team has is difficult, but below I have used the best way I can think of- Facebook likes. Simply, the more supporters a team have, the more likes that teams Facebook page should have.
South Sydney Rabbitohs 426000
Parramatta Eels 315000
Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs 282000
Wests Tigers 236000
Sydney Roosters 228000
Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles 185000
St George Illawarra Dragons 181000
Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks 168000
Penrith Panthers 156000
*NRL teams by Facebook likes
Some trends are starting to emerge about which teams are on the top and which are on the bottom. The very topic of this article is expansion however, and this must also include the ever-expanding Sydney population.
This expansion is happening in the western and south-western suburbs, so we should expect (and the NRL should ensure) the clubs based in Western Sydney remain strong and grow with the Sydney population.
This means teams like the Panthers, Bulldogs and even Tigers are safe, despite their troubles over the last few years.
The Eels and Souths appear to be too well supported, which leave us with four Sydney clubs that are mainly based out of regions that have for the most part already reached their population growth potential.
This means, if these teams want new fans, they will need to start looking outside of their traditional areas.
The teams I am talking about are Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks, Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles, Sydney Roosters, and St George Illawarra Dragons.
A crazy scheme or a possible solution?
How does the NRL introduce new teams while keeping a 16-team competition? The answer is they need to free up some licences, but simply kicking teams out of the competition runs the risk of losing fans to the game forever.
Especially with AFL and A-League breathing down the NRL’s neck, they cannot have entire regions of Sydney going unrepresented. But neither can they expect loyal Sharks fans to start suddenly supporting the Dragons.
The answer, I believe, is to start by splitting up the Red V, and re-merge them with the Souths and Sharks.
One of the key issues with the number of teams in Sydney, is that there are three teams that lay claim to ‘Southern Sydney’, an area that for the most part that strongly supports rugby league, but has run out of new fans in the area.
While the west still has room to grow, the south does not. To fix this issue, the NRL should do now what it should have done back during Super League.
Instead of the St George Dragons and Illawarra Steelers being merged, ignoring the Cronulla Sharks stuck in the middle of them, the Cronulla Sharks should merge with the Steelers, becoming the South Coast Sharks.
Primarily an out of Sydney team, they would focus on and truly represent the Wollongong and south coast, while still servicing the shire and keeping its fans and junior players happy under the Sharks name.
Whilst this certainly won’t please many fans, it is better in my opinion than relocation or removal. There is a rivalry between the Sharks and Dragons, but I believe for most of those in the Shire, there is not as much hatred for those to the south than those to the north.
I would expect home games to be split between Shark Park and WIN stadium, which could also result in better home ground attendance numbers since the Shire and Wollongong are that little bit closer to each other than Kogarah is.
The combined side would become far more powerful than the individual Sharks or Steelers ever were, creating a strong, well-supported side that would last for as long as rugby league exists in Australia.
Hey Paul, what about a Sharks-Dragons merger? (Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
The other side to this is the St George Dragons. The area they represent is surrounded on all sides, but their strongest neighbour would be Souths. The Dragons are by no means a weak club, they have strong brand image and rich history, however, in my opinion, a merger with the Souths is needed to free up an NRL licence.
The combined team would still represent South Sydney, but now go as far south as the Georges River. The name would show this, while still capturing the strong branding of Kogarah based side by becoming the South Sydney Dragons.
Fans of both could still support the Dragons and Souths, but now this would be two names for the same team. The result would be easily the most well-supported side, wiping away the competition in number of memberships. This powerhouse team would truly and undeniably be the Pride of the League.
This would free up one licence to allocate as the NRL saw fit, likely to a new Queensland-based side. They would be backed by juniors, existing NRL fans and potential sponsors.
However, I do not think it would be long until the expansion conversation returned again, and it would again be Sydney teams in the firing line, as there would be seven teams still based in Sydney (Tigers, Panthers, Bulldogs, Eels, Manly, Roosters and South Sydney Dragons).
The next two clubs at risk would have to be the Sydney Roosters and Manly Sea Eagles. Both represent relatively small regions, that are extremely limited in terms of population growth potential, and therefore new fans in the area.
Both clubs appear to be slowing in terms of supporter growth, as the people in their area move towards other codes as their main following.
There is also the issues around lack of junior development and poor quality grounds that have been known for some time. Now while these issues aren’t unsolvable by any means, I believe the NRL should pressure these clubs to fix them, or else face the consequences.
This isn’t to say the clubs have any control over their regions population growth, but making an effort to find out of Sydney support in new areas, for example, could help to ensure their safety, while providing the NRL with all those extra eyes-on-screen they want.
If the Roosters were to invest in the Perth market, establish a junior development program there and build support for rugby league, they could save themselves from relocation or removal.
Increasing junior participation in rugby league in Perth and creating stronger pathways for these juniors into the NRL, could potentially create enough of the extra top-grade players required for an 18-team competition in the future and removing the need to sacrifice Sydney teams to achieve this.
Optus Stadium will host the Origin decider in 2019. Could the city maintain a team? (Grant Trouville NRL Photos).
If they refused or failed, however, the NRL would then need to look to replace them with a new team, likely based in Perth. Whilst the Roosters have a strong history as a part of rugby league in Australia, the game cannot grow with new players, and cannot support a team that does not produce any players.
In saying this, I cannot see the Roosters being removed or relocated while Uncle Nick is in charge. He simply has too much influence in the NRL and among the supporters and sponsors of the NRL.
He also does appear to do a good job at running the club, compared to some of the other Sydney based sides and their well-reported management issues. However, Nick is currently 77 years old and is not going to be running the show at Bondi forever, and we must question what the effect will be on the Roosters once he is gone.
Will they still be able to draw in as many sponsors, players and supporters without him, or will the Roosters fall into mismanagement, the same way other clubs have struggled with for years now?
Manly, on the other hand, do have a stronger junior development program, but their issues lie with the number of supporters, which reduces the value of their brand, and the ability for the club to stay financially stable.
If Manly cannot resolve their finances, and do cannot increase their supporter base across the Northern Sydney region, then the NRL may be forced to replace them with a team that would be stronger, both in terms of their bank account and supporters.
However, the massive Northern Sydney region cannot go unrepresented, but luckily we have another option for this region should Manly fail to fix their issues.
Yes, I am talking about bringing back the Bears.
The North Sydney Bears currently have 14,000 fans on their Facebook page, quite high for a team not in the top grade for the last 20 years.
This shows there is still quite a few supporters, and the number of actual supporters would skyrocket if they came back. Of course the Bears couldn’t be restricted to just North Sydney. Instead, they would have to represent all of Northern Sydney, and the Central Coast.
The Gosford-Northern Sydney Bears would represent a massive area of rugby league heartland, an area that for long has struggled to identify with the Manly Sea Eagles or indeed any other team.
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA – 1993: Greg Florimo of the North Sydney Bears (Photo by Getty Images)
Bringing the Bears back into the competition, now with a mandate from the NRL to represent a much larger area, would prove far more successful than Manly currently is, because the Bears would know only too well what happens should they fail.
Plus, who wouldn’t watch the Bears Round 1 game back in the NRL? This would surely be one of the highest rating regular season games in the NRL’s history.
Brisbane Broncos
2nd Brisbane Team
Canberra Raiders
Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs
Gold Coast Titans
Gosford-Northern Sydney Bears
Melbourne Storm
Newcastle Knights
North Queensland Cowboys
New Zealand Warriors
Parramatta Eels
Penrith Panthers
Perth Team
South Coast Sharks
South Sydney Dragons
Wests Tigers
*Suggested new NRL teams
With the above changes, the NRL wouldn’t risk diluting the quality of playing talent, would minimise the risk of losing supporters to the game, and would build stronger junior development and support by ensuring more regions are being represented by a top-grade team.
The new competition would be better structured to build more support and more involvement, opening the door for further growth and expansion into new markets again, making rugby league the undisputed Australian sport of choice as it deserves.
So is this a stupid, crazy idea, or do you think it might just work?
Flynn Poo
Guest
The new Brisbane team should be the Diehards. Imagine the hype from the media and all the traditionalists. They could play some at Suncorp and some games at their new stadium. Good article and good research.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
It (Cronulla's call up)was called expansion, regardless of the Dragon's domination.And it created a local derby that always brings decent crowds. If Cronulla had few juniors, and not a growing young population, they would never have had the opportunity to be promoted. There has been differing views on the limited tackle rule.One theory was in fact that the Dragon's dominance was not a good thing ,with the unlimited tackle rule operating. The spectacle was another as the continued dominance of one club, was not considered ideal. Cronulla Sutherland as I have already stated are financially as strong if not stronger than. a few other Sydney clubs. You assume sending the Sharks to Perth will ensure Shark's fans will support them.Tell him your dreaming.Perth have made it abundantly clear ,they do not want a relocated team, they want their own identity. We can't even get the Gold Coast right ATM FHS. Perhaps as the demographics of Hurstville and surrounds are changing, the Dragons should concentrate their efforts in the Illawarra.And not worry about the Sharks,because the Sharks , they are at least getting off their backsides to ensure their future long term.
Bulldog53
Roar Rookie
Rob, I appreciate the amount of thought that you put into this article and putting it on here for consideration and comment, but what you have written just ain't gunna happen. The 9 Sydney clubs are too strong financially now that they get a gift from the the NRL of 130% of the salary cap each year. This should be enough to keep most clubs in the NRL afloat and puts $3m on the Broncos bottom line. The only reason relocation or mergers work is financial. Dragons and Steelers merged because the Steelers were in financial difficulty with no major income streams and it was natural fit. Manly and Norths merged as Manly was in financial difficulty. The merger was not a natural fit and was used to keep Manly afloat. Under purely financial circumstances, Norths should be in the NRL and Manly not. Wests and Tigers merged as both were in financial difficulty. The merger was not a natural fit but was facilitated due to fears both clubs would be swallowed up by others, Wests by Canterbury and Tigers by Parramatta. For the long term future of the game this would have been the best option rather than the current merged team. This leaves expansion to create an 18 team competition, or do we have 2 conferences, or do we have A & B competitions with promotion and relegation? Whatever happens, there needs to be enough competent players to fill the positions created. Also there needs to be media $$$ to support it. There is talk that the $$$ won't be there next TV deal so negotiations and expansion should be discussed with that in mind and include the broadcasters. If an 18 team comp, they need to find and extra time slot, if A &B competitions they need to find 2 slots. I tend to think they will go with and 18 team competition with a 2nd Brisbane team and a team in Perth. In an ideal world 4 teams would be cut from Sydney (Manly, Easts, Cronulla and Wests) a 2nd Brisbane and Perth, plus a mid Qld side and a 2nd NZ side to create a 16 team comp. Or just cut the 4 teams and have higher quality 12 team comp and each team play each other twice. The world is far from ideal and neither is the NRL, so none of that is going to happen.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Yes the Sutherland shire had over half as many juniors as the St.George shire but it was the other clubs that decided it was time for Cronulla-Sutherland to exist mainly to stop Saints. The introduction of limited tackle football was backed by the English who wanted to improve the game as a spectacle not stop St.George. Cronulla-Sutherland owe their existence to squealing Souths fans.
Rob
Roar Rookie
Agree that Facebook likes is not an accurate measurement of the whole supporter base, but in this case I have used it only as a guide of each teams base in comparison to the others. Yes many 50+ don’t have Facebook but this is true of all teams and so should effect all teams equally. I would expect actually supporter numbers would result in a list that is in almost the same order as the one I have. I agree with your statement on the bulldogs but do not see Souths and Rooster merge ever working. Perhaps a Dragons- Bulldogs merge would be better in my idea than Dragons-Souths? I disagree that the dragons are mainly a Wollongong club. Certainly the st George leagues club is the more powerful and they took all the dragons branding in the merge and very little Illawarra. These days it seems it’s still st George with a nursary in Wollongong. On your sixth point, yes rugby league is tribal, but these tribes are based on regions. If you moved a team away from the region, fans will lose touch and loose support. NRL is a geographic sport. Agree there is little interest in NRL away from the way coast but this is because we haven’t really invested in anything else. I also agree QLD needs at least another team but I think we need to give Perth a go as well. The fact there is no support there no just means there’s more new fans to sell the game to. Look at it as an opportunity rather than a problem.
mushi
Roar Guru
The titan's didn't have the relocation issue though. You see how much of a factor it is in the AFL with players either wanting to head back to Perth or the east coast. Given no draft you'd have to give them cap exemptions, I'd probably say the contracts are all X% front loaded and sculpt down - mainly because I don't trust an NRL team board to manage cap exemptions (or a petty cash tin) properly
Rob
Roar Rookie
Agree with many of your points Bearfax, although I’m not a bears supporter. I honestly don’t care who sits up north, but feel that team needs to represent northern Sydney and the central coast. Happy for manly to do that but if they don’t then perhaps they need to be replaced with someone who could. Whether the Bears is the best team or not I’m not sure but again I don’t care if a new team there was called the Gosford- Northern Sydney Moost Towelletes, as long as they connect with and engage a wider area than just the northern beaches. One thing with rugby league is for sure, any team you do remove will result in loss of fans. A merger to me seems the best way to reduce teams while minimising fan loss.
Rob
Roar Rookie
This link is what makes NRL great. There is such intense tribalism for your local team and they really do represent and become part of the identity of your local area, and I would never want to change this. I want to build on this and make sure all areas have a team that represents them
Rob
Roar Rookie
Thanks mate, I had the aim of starting a conversation about it and feel I’ve achieved that. Amalgamations are tricky, mainly due to the club politics that come out of them. This would no doubt be one of the major risks in my idea and one I honestly don’t have an answer to. Not sure removing the sharks is the best way, you would loose thousands of fans in the area and would take decades to bring some back, if at all. Agree with the tigers as well, south west is a booming area and the tigers must push more out that way. Rugby league is a tribal sport, and for the most part people support their local team. We need to keep this in mind and make sure areas are being properly represented by a team or the fans there will lose touch and fall away from the game.
Rob
Roar Rookie
Guess again. I don’t support the bears, I just think the north needs better representation. Manly is the logical team that should be doing that to me so I think the NRL should set that as their criteria- engage more with the greater northern Sydney and central coast or risk losing your place to someone else
NSWelshman1
Guest
Another Bears supporter desperate to get them back into the NRL lololol....these people will never get it thru their heads...the Bears are gone!
Joey Reeve
Guest
That just might work. It's obvious that you've put a lot of thought into this. But, as a Rabbitohs supporter, I'm not so keen about the South Sydney Dragons. I think South Sydney should be left alone, because of their massive fan base. Merge with somebody else. That could just be my bias speaking though...
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
I just don't want to see the Brisbane Bombers, which is a name see in this regard in the past. Stupid name.
WESTS for Life
Roar Rookie
G'day Roar Rookie Rob : Congratulations on a bloody good attempt to solve the enormous problem of expanding our NRL. You had the guts to give it a go and you were brave in doing that, with the result being you started tongues wagging and minds ticking over. I feel your suggestions are the best I have seen so far. I also like Steven Valtas's suggestions for the 2 conference set up. Amalgamations in the future will only cause years of turmoil amongst the fans of both clubs re. my club The West's Magpies with the Balmain Tigers. On a last in first out basis, the Sharks are out completely. The Manly silver spoons need to pull their fingers out or face being deleted and if we lived in a fair world the Roosters would be deleted. West's Tigers MUST be moved to Campbelltown and as much as I would love them to once again be called The Magpies, it doesn't really matter as so many fans have grown up with and become used to the Tigers brand.
Papi Smurf
Roar Rookie
"Wrong thier to needle brain, it is there" As TB says BJ, it's “their” not "thier". Also, Justin used the correct usage albeit that it was misspelled which is no cardinal sin. It is "their" not "there" as you suggest though. Also you used the wrong "to", it should be "too" (in addition; also). Their is the possessive of they, as in "They live there but it isn't their house." In this case "their" is possessive as it signifies that team's rival. If you are going to correct others you have to be 100% sure of your correction. I make plenty of typos due to FTS (Fat Thumb Syndrome) on a mobile and everyone makes spelling mistakes from time to time. We should be more concerned with the ideas being expressed than using spelling and grammar to attack an argument in any case. Don't you agree?
Papi Smurf
Roar Rookie
In the truest sense of the word the ONLY thing left in Australian Rugby League that is traditional is the South Sydney Rabbitohs. Unchanged since 1908, they have never changed their name unlike the Roosters who have changed their name from "Eastern Suburbs: to "Sydney City" to "Sydney" and soon to "Perth".
Brian
Guest
Its interesting that NRL sides in Sydney are so tied to their location whilst in Victoria AFL supporters are happy to suuport a side as long as its from Victoria irrespective of locality. Maybe if the NRL broke this link in Sydney like the AFL has in Melbourne expansion becomes easier.
The Barry
Roar Guru
If they had a 2-3 year lead in and MAYBE some cap exemptions (I haven’t really thought that through) then they would be ok. If they signed a marquee player or two early they’d get the rest flowing through. The Titans joined in 07. In 09 they finished 3rd and 4th in 2010. Off field shenanigans derailed them and they’re still trying to recover.
fuzhou
Roar Rookie
All this chatter about merging/relocation is destructive in itself. By merging South Sydney and St George you would probably alienate thousands of fans of those two great clubs. Was nothing learned from the Super League War? Apparently not. But if it absolutely had to happen, then I'd de-merge Wests Tigers, keeping Wests Magpies in the Macarthur region and send the Tigers north to Brisbane. Next, let the Central Coast re-birth the Bears in the old black and red. The idea of sending the Sharks to Perth is problematic in that the additional costs involved would be a huge economic burden on already stretched club budgets.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Peter Davies Cronulla Sutherland were created because they had a huge junior league within the Shire,and decided it was time they could stand on their own two feet. The introduction of limited tackle football was the main reason to stop a club dominating a compass the dragon had done for 11 years. It was only a few years later in 1973 when the likes of Steve Rogers,Rick Bourke,Greg Pierce all locals burst onto the scene to play in the Grand Final.The area has the 3rd largest junior league in Sydney, with tackle ,tag and touch and girls involvement. Owning their own ground, all debts cleared this year ,$18m in the Bank years end and another $12.2m held in Bank escrow a/c to refurbish an up to date Leagues club. They have a far more "proper reason to stay exactly where they are, rather than a relocated team, which the Perth bid team do not want in any case. Any assumption Sharks fans will jump on board a relocated version of their club, shows just how out of touch people are.