Terrible name and jersey.

To me, one of the things that Aussie rules has over other codes, particularly rugby league is that the clubs have a more traditional image and culture.

Australian football never really seemed to embrace the crass Americanized imagery that some parts of the rugby league world did, starting in the 80s. Like new clubs being given nicknames that are actually part of the club name itself, rather than just nicknames. Or all new club names being copied directly from existing American clubs (Steelers, Raiders, and worst of all Broncos), mostly without any sort of local relevance. Cheerleaders, logos/crests in a cartoon style, the list goes on.

But now? Gold Coast Suns and Greater Western Sydney Giants? Woeful. What are they doing?

People tend to overstate the problem of travelling costs in running any sort of second-tier competition. The standard response that opponents of second-divisions in any sport is oftne something like “we can’t afford to have these 2nd division sides flying all over the country”.

Well, here’s a newsflash…it’s happening already in other codes. The Queensland Cup rugby league comp has teams from Cairns to Tweed Heads playing in it. The NSW Cup has a team from Auckland. These clubs manage to survive.

Travel costs are definitely something to consider, but it’s not as big a problem as people seem to make out.

I don’t have any interest in watching a playoff for 3rd place, personally. The premiership is the main game….who care’s which team comes 3rd?

Do you think the players and clubs would actually care about it? They might if there was some prize money up for grabs, but how does this game generate any extra revenue to justify giving prize money?

I would like to see a second division in soccer for the sake of the clubs that sustained the sport for many years before the a-league. But how realistic is it at the moment?

The AFL is making the first steps towards a national second division at the moment with the national knockout cup starting next year for teams from the state leagues. In rugby league, the QRL has been pushing hard for a national second division competition to replace the national U20s.

But some of these competitions like the Qld Cup, SANFL and WAFL already get good attendances (not much less than some a-league clubs) and rate well for their match of the round where they are broadcast on the ABC.

What sort of attendances does the NSWPL get? Is it broadcast on TV?

8. You must play State of Origin for the state in which you were born.

Totally disagree with this one. Most people feel allegience to the state they grow up in or live during their formative years. For many this is also where they are born, but not necessarily.

There is more to someone’s “origin” than just where they were born, it’s more important where they grew up.

Yes the current rule has allowed a few dubious selections, but by and large it works. Your idea is far more arbitrary and would be ultimately worse. Imagine if a player was born in Victoria but moved to Queensland at a very young age, where they grew up and learned to play football. Your rule would prevent them from playing Origin. Or would force them to play for a state that they felt no allegience to.

You’re right, we don’t know the makeup yet I agree.

But we know the clubs were opposed to the State leagues having a say in the election of the commission. Why?

Why don’t you have a guess why Searle is so keen for the commission? You think it has anything to do with the fact that he is one of the owners of the Gold Coast? Why wouldn’t he want the clubs (his included) to take ownership of the entire game of rugby league football (and all of it’s revenues) in Australia?

What happens if the commission has to make a decision that is going to be good for RL in general, but possibly bad for some or all of the existing NRL clubs. Such as relegating some of the smaller Sydney sides, or possibly introducing a second division? Do you think a club-owned organsation will do that? You’re asking the turkeys to vote for Christmas mate….it never happens.

But yes, we have to wait and see.

Crosscoder, that’s fairly commonly held view, but I have to say a pretty naive one.

If the only thing that matters is the much-repeated “independence” of the commissioners (what does this actually mean, independent of what? The clubs, the sport, any interest in or knowledge of rugby league?) then why are the clubs so opposed to allowing the QRL and NSWRL a say in electing those officials?

After all, if the only requirement necessary for a successful commission is the independence then it shouldn’t matter whether the QRL or as you say the CWA elects the commissioners.

In reality, it WILL matter who elects the commissioners, because they will ultimately get people onto who are of the same mind or similar to themselves. It is very easy to say things like “the commission must act in the best interests of the game” or must want to “grow the game from the grass roots to the pinnacle”, but these are vague ideas. Virtually any decision can be defended as being in the best interests of the game, and there are always going to be competing interests within the game, when there is scarce resources. What is good for some the existing NRL clubs, might not be good for the greater RL community.

I agree with the general idea of your article but not sure of your conclusion.

You’re right that in the AFL, the primary “equalisation” tool is the draft. There are heaps of good points about the draft – it builds up the weaker teams, but does not directly pull down the stronger teams, it allows dynasties and continuity from year to year, it encourages players to stay loyal to their clubs. But the big downside is it totally loses the district element of sport which was never a part of Aussie rules but has always been a part of rugby league.

But I don’t really think the u/20s plays much a role in equalling out the comp. The main thing has always been the salary cap. There are so many problems with this, which are evident for all to see.

For example in 2008 Canterbury came last, then in 2009 they came second, and now in 2010 they have come 13th. How is this a good thing? There is hardly any continuity from year to year. There is less and less chance of building up a good team over a number of years and gradually improving into a dominant side.

This has all been sacrificed to the misguided idea that the wooden spooners must be genuine premiership contenders in the very next year. But this also means that the premiers must be wooden spoon contenders as well…..you can’t have one without the other.

Regional area, just on the outskirts of Sydney? Good junior base? League-mad area? YES, YES and YES!

No doubt about it then, you know it makes sense…..BRING BACK THE ILLAWARRA STEELERS!

Why are the Bears still playing out of North Sydney oval? Why don’t they actually go and play out of Gosford next year? If the Central Coast Bears were getting decent crowds of a few thousand through the gate every week in the NSW Cup that would be something that would be pretty hard to ignore.

Haha.

OK so it looks like you’re aiming to go for the record for number of responses to an article.

Nice angle, it’s fresh. Not very subtle, but I for one like it.

I think the current title holder is “10 good reasons why rugby league and rugby union should merge”, with “It’s not soccer, it’s called football”, running a close second.

Good luck mate.

This is a great idea. You’re right, it devalues the premiership to have it a number of rounds played without the rep players. Better to have a seperate comp for those rounds.

My suggestion would be:

Play 3 Origins and 1 Aus V NZ test over 4 weekends and have a 5-week knockout or cup competition to fill in the demand for more games of footy.

16 NRL clubs plus 8 qualifiers from the Queensland Cup or NSW Cup, arranged in 8 groups of 3. Each club plays 2 group games, winner of each group goes into the knockouts.

I like the idea of a knockout comp with the lower tier clubs. But I don’t think 64 teams could compete. Queensland Cup sides could realistically play against NRL sides. Brisbane Broncos played a pre-season match against the Redcliffe Dolphins this year (and in previous years I think).

I thought it was a refreshing sign when GCFC game out and said they will not nominate a nickname for the club, they would let it develop over time. Then they come out and christen the club “the Suns”. It has to be one of the worst nicknames in recent memory, especially given one of the strong points of AFL clubs is that they are not as Americanised as other in other sports.

My interest is rapidly fading.

Brett, fair enough the district quotas are long since gone, but I don’t think it’s fair to say there is NO district element. The clubs still have strong ties to the local areas (unlike AFL where they were never district clubs). Perhpaps some more than others. And good point about the “other” $40m…what is this spent on?

Fair points, and you’re right there’s no perfect solution. At least this suggestion will enable clubs to legally keep premiership winning sides together for more than a couple of seasons, which is what many (most?) supporters want to see.

Nothing really. Whatever system you go with will have this risk. Personally I wouldn’t be too concerned if the NRL scrapped the salary cap altogether (I know many will not agree).

But the point of the luxury tax isn’t to solve the problem of clubs complying with the rules, it’s saying that there are better ways to keep the competition even – rather than punishing the successful clubs, make the focus more on building up the struggling ones.

Maybe at the margin there would be less incentive to cheat a luxury tax, because the rewards would not as high as it is in the current salary cap system.

I’m not against taking the occassional game on the road, but the other side of it is that the local home supporters get one less game. I would have thought it is a bigger priority for Sydney clubs is to shore up their local support base. How does it help to sell memberships and build a more loyal following (who attend matches) if a number of home games aren’t even played at home?

I like the idea of a Challenge Cup, but could you clarify something for me?

Are all regional or metro A grade sides allowed to enter, or is only 2 from each league? If only 2, how will you get to your total of 256 sides? Are there even 256 A grade sides in the country?

Why is it a good thing that many clubs are winning the premiership, if it has to be brought about by the administators artificially rigging the competition to even it all out? If an even competition is so important why don’t the clubs just draw lots for the players at the start of each year, or better yet a panel of experts could allocate each player to a club in the name of fairness and equality?

It devalues the whole concept of a premiership if it almost becomes something that the NRL administrators rig up so it’s shared around equally. I hate the idea that the NRL should have it as a goal to “ensure no club enjoys an extended period of dominance” – you might like the idea, but each to his own.

When St George were so dominant during the 50s and 60s (possibly the most dominant run of any football club in any code worldwide), what happened? Did the supporters turn away in droves, as all the salary cap cheerleaders are so quick to predict? No. Attendances were steady or rising during that time. Rugby league went from strength to strength.

Steve,

To me the question is simple. Personally I couldn’t care how much he is paid, and whether the club is under or over some arbitrary number which the league seeks to cap player salaries. I just want to see him play football.

Some people seem to think that if a club is paying a player less than he might earn elsewhere that it’s somehow against the “spirit” of the salary cap. That belief is wrong on so many levels.

Firstly the “spirit” of the salary cap is nothing to be admired or protected. It’s a spirit that punishes and restrains success and competence and rewards and protects mediocrity. It is one that fosters and entrenches the ability of an group of employers (NRL and clubs) to dictate unfair terms to a group of employees (the players) – ostensibly to benefit the entire sport, but in reality only to benefit the paymasters and few others.

Secondly the league itself has advanced the argument in the past that salary alone is not the only determinant in a player’s choice of club. So here we have a player who is happy to take some kind of haircut, at least in the medium term, to play for the club of his choice, and still people are not satisfied.

The salary cap has done enough damage to football without the addition of some perverse “salary cap code of ethics” above and beyond the objective rules.

The code of rugby league only came into being as a result against an unfair restriction on player salaries. We got by for 90 or 100 years on the principle that a player is entitled to earn whatever a club is willing to pay him. The sky didn’t fall in.

If you really want to question some beliefs that are blindly held as articles of faith, you might perhaps consider whether a salary cap or equalisation policies in general are actually good for sport and the NRL in particular. Where if any is the evidence for this? Or are they actually only good for certain narrow and vested interests, particularly within the administration.

The cap has to go.

As a final postscript to this article, the following might give some food for thought to those who think a national 2nd division is pie in the sky.

I understand that the QRL have recently commissioned an independent report into the viability of a national second tier competition. Apparently the QRL are keen on the idea and based on this report they will be putting forward some proposals to the NRL and ARL for a national second tier comp of some kind.

I have no idea exaclty what their proposals might look like (nothing like mine I am sure). But it does mean that a second division is a real possibility that the various leagues are considering. Whether it happens or not, we’ll have to wait and see.

Sheek, you can never say never, but do you think anyone would attempt another Superleague style revolution given what happened last time? I don’t think it could be classified as a success in any way. Surely some lessons were learned. People generally hate massive upheaval in the name of progress, but will be much more likely to accept gradual change or evolution toward something new.

Perhaps this is why there seems to be constant talk about a Kangaroos V Wallabies match? Wasn’t there some kind of suggestion of this happening in October this year? A small first step towards your ultimate prediction maybe?

Crosscoder, some good points, but I would disagree that in the hypothetical scenario having 24 clubs of average quality is better than 12 high quality and 12 low quality. But I guess that is just my personal preference.

Penrith and Cronulla are both averaging around 11,000 in match attendance this year, hardly packing them in, and Penrith is playing well.

The reality is that some clubs are stronger and more popular than others, and by trying to keep the competition equal using the salary cap and so on, the better clubs are necessarily pulled back to the level of the weaker, least popular clubs, which is ultimately detrimental to the appeal of the whole competition.

James, I couldn’t agree more that quality is important which is really the motivation for this idea. If the NRL add new sides into the existing structure it will just diliute the quality of the matches. As it stands with 16 clubs the top talent is already spread quite thinly, so what happens with 18 or 20 clubs?

The idea is to create a high quality top tier, but also keep a place (2nd division) for those teams who don’t have the support to justify a spot in the top division.

True, the casual rugby league fan in Sydney would probably have little interest in a second division, it would be for the more devoted league supporters, or for those areas that don’t have representation in the NRL at present.