NRL coaches poll pushes rival expansion bid over PNG, overhaul of player transfer system and crackdown on agents

I hear you and partly agree with what you are saying. Its far easier to get a Rugby fan to a League game than trying to get an AFL nut (I think all AFL fans are nuts) to go. However, the 2nd largest city in NZ is Christchurch with 326,000 people. Compare that to Perth with 2.5 million. Perth has demonstrated an appetite for Rugby of both codes and isn't welded on AFL just yet (due to the absence of NRL representation it is slowly getting there). Perth probably has its own unique sponsorship pool including many of the big miners who might just get behind them, I am not sure that Christchurch would have anything like that opportunity. In an ideal world, we could accommodate all of them but personally, I think there is a bigger case to be made for Perth than a second NZ team.

I just think NZ has more of an established affinity for the game. To me, it doesnt really matter how big your market is it natters how many Rugby League fans you have. It matters how many paying punters you can get throught the gate or watching on TV and I think NZ has the advantage there. For example, compare the Tigers with the Cowboys. There's way more people in the western suburbs of Sydney than Townsville but the Cowboys are an unmitigated success and the Tigers are a complete disaster.

"Perth will always be there a few years down the line" After all, they have been "down the line" for decades now. I don't mind the idea of a second NZ team in order to gain synergies and establish a foothold but to be frank, the population over there is relatively small particularly when you consider that Auckland is taken up. How many folks are going to travel to Christchurch or Wellington to see a game on a regular basis ? Also remember that any new team will have an uphill battle against an established union structure.

Randy, I suspect that a lot of the talk around PNG is media fluff. Vlandy's will not want to be seen as ruling anything out at this stage as you never know what will crawl out of the woodwork and it is important to keep everyone as engaged as possible for as long as possible. Like you, I think PNG is never likely to be in serious contention. The most telling elements of this are the comments around Perth and a possibility of a Perth / Bears bid. Whilst I have nothing against the Bears themselves, there are simply too many clubs in Sydney but something like a split location club might work especially if home games are played out of Perth and away (Sydney) games are played out of a neutral venue. Getting Perth to engage in such a compromise would be key. "V’landys has done some good things for the sport but he is very, very short-sighted at times. He just wants the government handout" I think you are doing V'landys a dis-service there. Judge him by what he does not what he says to the press.

Ok, 1- Are you truly suggesting that PNG’s following of rugby league isn’t being parlayed into positioning ‘community support’ for an expansion club in the country as a strength of the bid? Minister for the Pacific Pat Conroy said the following ‘Papuneans are mad about rugby league and having a Papunean team in the NRL would be really good and Australia is supporting and partnering with us to realise those aspirations.’ Quotes along these lines have been a dime a dozen from the Feds in their support of this. Heck, the whole ploy of using PNG18 as a Pacific diplomacy strategy involves positioning our government and relationship with PNG favourably in the eyes of their government and people. As such, you would hope the play would have overwhelming public support there and I’m simply putting forward my opinion on this here opinion site (shock, horror) that it doesn’t. 2- I’ve outlined the hyperbolic nature of what you’re quoting back to me there which was somewhat in the spirit of what it was in response to. I’m sorry you missed it the first time. How about you leave it? 3- Yes, it’s not policy. Ok, it’s not a commitment at this stage. But what exactly do you suggest reports of a ‘$600m commitment over 10 years’ are? Figures plucked from thin air that should never be uttered in the public discourse? Like the entire bid itself, in no way do I think it’s a lock-in (which ironically is one of the issues with a bid relying heavily on government funding which I believe the PNG one will), but again, those reports coincided with noise and interest around PNG coming out of hq which suggests PVL and crew are excited about something. I haven’t ‘made up’ anything, it’s been widely reported that’s what the Feds are coming to the party with and while the exact detail is still unknown, I don’t think it's unrealistic to expect an announcement that puts it somewhere in the ballpark of reports (which isn’t unusual in these situations). Furthermore, having an opinion on what’s being reported (while that still may be unconfirmed) isn’t a crime and I’m certainly not the only person here or in the wider world (rugby league and beyond) that’s been critical of the sort of tax payer investment that’s been suggested. BTW, this wouldn’t be the first time a premature policy has been put into the light of day to be run through the ‘pub test’- it’s kind of what they’re useful for.

Rosie, Brisbane Broncos, Redcliffe Dolphins & Ipswich Jets makes more sense to me. And if they ever squeezed a 4th team into Greater Brisbane, I would call it Valley Brothers, combining of course Valley & Brothers, playing in the Valley royal blue, but butcher stripes of Brothers. Just as an aside, Nudgee College play in royal blue butcher stripes rather than Brothers’ navy blue (in both codes). We’ll have to agree to disagree on the Bears’ actual home. If we go to 24 clubs, we could make all these things happen, although if NRL ever decides to go to 24 clubs, it’ll collapse!

I'm not sure how aware you are of this - it seems almost reflexive - but consider the following. "there does seem to be a sentiment from those pushing for this to happen that because PNG is rugby league-nuts (no argument there), that everyone there is on board with it" An obvious nonsense but a common rhetorical technique - everybody on the other side of the argument is irrational - an invented opposition and proposition. "Well someone’s convinced it’ll be what’s standing between us and the national expansion of Australia’s Chinatowns" Another obvious nonsense in the same vein, which may well have been exaggeration, but it is consistent with your position and MO. "$600 million of taxpayer monies isn’t something not to be sneezed at. It’s enough to be scrutinized by the pub test and there’s an argument that money could be better spent in the form of a more impactful diplomatic initiative" Leaving aside the vacuity of invoking the so-called 'pub test', you're again inventing the proposition you're arguing against. No funding has been committed, there is no detail to scrutinize, never mind to make any kind of value-for-money or qualitative comparison to other spending possibilities. It's possible to argue against a proposition without fabricating it - in other words, making stuff up.

Sure. You did ask where the figure came from- the $60m/year for 10 that’s been widely reported is where it came from and it seems the onset of those reports is when hq’s interest in PNG peaked. If it piddles down to be considerably less than that, I can’t even see a loose unit like PVL getting behind it.

Funding envelope and allocation details yet to be confirmed.

Albanese’s putting up $60m a year for 10 years- a $600m commitment.

Sure. BTW, where does this $600 million figure come from - that's more than the total annual DFAT aid budget to PNG?

:laughing: :laughing:

Don’t really need another in nsw

I am with you on Perth and Wellington, and certainly believe PNG or a Pasifika team is doomed from the get go. I don’t think you could bring back the Bears on the Central Coast or in North Sydney, they need to relocate to Perth and fully embrace WA. If you go to 20 I think Brisbane Jets, then the Dolphins can call themselves Redcliffe again.

‘Australia broken’ is a bit different to ‘PNG broken’

When fundamental systems such as health and education are broken, corruption is rife across government and a decent chunk of the population live a standard of life that Australians simply could not comprehend- there’s other areas that many people would rather see prioritised above bringing online a professional rugby league team. I mean you could be talking about Australia here. And standards that Australia 20 years ago wouldn't believe.

Said with tongue firmly planted in cheek Redcap. That said, while it’s a small(ish) investment in the scheme of things ($60m of a $1.9B annual budget for Pacific aid), committing $600 million of taxpayer monies isn’t something not to be sneezed at. It’s enough to be scrutinized by the pub test and there’s an argument that money could be better spent in the form of a more impactful diplomatic initiative (or somewhere else all together).

Another straw-man. Nobody in their right mind thinks it's any more than a very small part of a much broader diplomatic effort in the Pacific.

Well someone’s convinced it’ll be what’s standing between us and the national expansion of Australia’s Chinatowns…

Agreed… The NRL are so arrogant however, they probably think that the greatest game of all is all that’s required for social harmony