How many such games does the AFL have, though?



RL is Aus has the GF, 3 SOO and any international matches which typically pull decent viewing figures as well.

Every game just about is like an origin game, if you have Collingwood v say Carlton at the MCG with 80,000 for a club match, who needs origin??



They used to have Origin, it was once quiet big i believe, butr like i said, the rivalries amongst the bigger clubs equals what Origin has to offer, the crowds are ridiculously big & passionate

take out adelaide and replace with PNG and ill back that.



i still believe we can expand without killing off clubs in sydney.



whats the point in gaining 15,000 fans in perth if you lose the same number in cronulla who then follow a rival sport.



we need something like 20 or 22 teams in the nrl.

The point is that it gives you a solid presence in Perth, something currently lacking. Sydney is already dominated by RL, the loss of 15k Cronulla fans won't change much; but the addition of 15k fans in Perth [iwould[/i.

you dont get 3 million people watching collingwood vs carlton thats the problem sunshine. 3 million people watch every origin game.



hence why the AFL cant match the nrl.



good to see you sticking up for the AFL mob, they need all the help they can get.



indeed, 1 origin game in queensland gets more TV ratings than an ENTIRE season of AFL games in that state.



so much for AFL in queensland eh mate?

no it actually wouldnt.



perth TV games get something like 14,000 watching.



indeed Swans get only 80,000 - 100,000 watching their live games in sydney.



people in RL states dont watch AFL and vice versa so if we want to increase the value of tv rights its where people will watch the sport and where there isnt a team at the moment.



in order of priority queensland and the central coast would rank ahead of perth, as would wellington.



perth would be nice, but id put more queensland clubs ahead of them.

Yes, it would.



It gives the NRL and ARL a rallying point for the media in terms of another expansion team doing relatively well.



It gives the game more coverage in Perth, as the local media are more likely to report on an equivalent to Cronulla than the current relatively low profile semi pro outfit.



It gives the fans a sense of confidence; it reassures them that the NRL and AFL are not simply retreating into their bunkers, a view that has seemed apparent on Aussie message boards in the recent past. The Aussie media seem keen to keep reporting lies and half truths about the delining popularity of the game, in the face of all evidence. A Perth team with an overnight 15k fans is an important statement of intent and power.







I suspect the viewing figures would be higher if they involved, well, a Perth team.







80 to 100k regular viewers in Perth would be a great start, alongside 15k fans in the ground. I reckon the NRL should happily take that.







People in AFL states do watch RL - Melbourne get decent figures, for example the SOO, when given the genuine chance to do so.



I'm not sure there's huge numbers of people in QLD who would watch RL with the addition of another team, who don't already watch RL.



I think the situation in Perth may be rather different; they don't have a top level team in the state, but they do have grassroots - and the potential to add to the value of the sport in a manner that another QLD team would struggle to match.

1. the storm lose between 1 - 3 million pa apparently, covered by news ltd. who is to cover those losses for a perth team?



2. the queenland teams on the whole are profitable.



3. the nrl is taking the approach that they want the storm to get their losses down. rather than admit more teams with poor finances from expansion areas, they will go with ones for now that will be strong from day one.



look at the titans, a massive success. more queensland teams will copy that.



population data shows that queensland will be the number 2 state population wise in 20 years, so we need to ensure we keep that as ours.



4. RL areas in australia comprise a majority of the population. thats why afl is so desperate to expand into our areas.



west brisbane and the central coast have all been mentioned by the nrl as more important now than perth and i can understand what they mean.



5. you are aware that cronulla actually own their own ground and the land adjoining, worht around $50 million. they are planning more ground improvements and building a hotel which will make them quite wealthy.



why is losing a part of sydney considered progress.



people said souths should be out of the nrl, and once that happened they realized the mistake.



norths getting kicked out just meant the north shore went to union and AFL.

Who would cover the Storm losses?



Oh, wait, someone does.







There's more to life than profit. Should we shut down any NSW or SL teams that don't turn a profit?







This point presupposes that another team would have identical finances to the Storm; I'm not sure that's always going to be reliable, but it's certainly worth thinking about. But we should be thinking long-term for expansion, and a short term loss is worth it, IMO.







Again, this presupposes that a Perth team, for example, [iwon't[/i be a success.



We could equally look at the performance of the Titans and conclude that RL is Sydney, by comparison, needs a scythe running through it.



I'm not sure that's the case.







How do new teams in QLD ensure this? Why won't those same fans grow up as fans of the existing teams? This doesn't make sense.







Surely you therefore propose another few teams in the Melbourne environs, due to the population there?







I think their ideas have merit in many ways.







A straight swap between Cronulla in Sydney and an equivalent club in Perth is a no-brainer; this comment simply reinforces that.







I don't think it should be about "losing a pert of Sydney", I think it should be about widening the representation of the sport at the top level. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to reconcile the current situation with being able to bring more teams in.



Not enough cash, for one thing; something a better TV deal might help.

Feck Qld you muppet!! the place is full of banjo playing inbreds or low income earners from NSW or VIC who are basically Westy scum & act like it.



SOO is three bloody games, thats all, we all cream ourselves over three games & a grand final, that just about sums up our year.



The Afl's whole final system is watched religiously, those big games that regularly attract 80,000 or more are almost bloody weekly, just about every other game is 40,000 plus, & i'd hazard a guess & say that the bigger games would attract a few million on the box, someone might like to correct me, but any victorian or W.A people would surely agree that they would all tune into Collingwood v carlton or Hawthorn, or St kilda etc.



Like i said, i dont really care for the game, doubt i've watched a whole game through, but stop kidding yourself knackers, we aint got Sh@t compared to the way they do things

1. so whose going to cover the losses a perth team would make? that would be nobody.



2. queensland teams make profit, perth wont. you work out why im saying a queensland team is better on that score, its not very hard.



3. no extra teams in melbourne as its not a RL area. queensland is. seroiusly put some thought into this.



4. no a straight swap between sydney and perth wont work. souths and norths showed why that doesnt work.

so you are a RL fan and claim origin means nothing?











stick to watching the swans mate.



origin is the pinnacle of australian sport.



even one of the brisbane lions players said he wished AFL had something like it.



they dont.



poor dears.

just for the poor AFL fan :



1. Origin - TV viewers 10 million.

2. Crowds - 170,000 - 220,000 each year.

3. Revenues for RL 10 million.



AFL - collingwood vs essendon.

If it adds value to their subscriptions, I imagine News might be interested.



Either way, profit is not the be all and end all.







See above; do all the Sydney teams turn a comparable profit?







I'm using your population argument. It's not as simple as "place x is projected to have a lot of people", or Melbourne would be targetted for more teams.







The argument was predicated on swapping 15k fans in Cronulla to something comparable in Perth.



I'd take that, as it opens up a new market, and helps dispel the myths surrounding RL only being viable in certain constrained areas.

1. news ltd killed off perth last time, so i doubt theyd cover those losses, no.



2. sydney clubs have either Leagues Clubs or rich owners to cover the losses.



3. population applies to a RL state. more clubs are needed in a state where the sport is popular. 3 isnt enough.



4. again 15,000 in perth for 15,000 lost in cronulla isnt expansion. its canibalization. as ive said before when it happened to souths and norths the sport suffered.



5. RL in australia doesnt suffer the same as it does in england. we are probably the dominant sport of the country so if people want to say its only played in queensland and nsw, good luck to them.



since those places are more than half the population, im happy with that.



AFL is our major rival sport. it has zero international presence, and other than 3 states in australia, is insignificant or non existant every where else in the world.



i actually support a perth NRL club. but its not crucial to our success. queensland is much more important for the codes future.



we already are in a very strong position. perth would be the icing on the cake, but its not as if we need them in some stupid quest to put pins in the map as AFL does.



we need clubs where there are lots of RL fans, and where there will be even more RL fans in the future.



central coast and queensland, and also wellington, PNG are up there.



perth would be nice, and id brush adelaide all together

This is fair enough, but I don't believe profit is the be all and end all, as I've said before.







Why not move some Sydney teams there? If QLD is a haven of profit and is desperate for teams, it would make sense.







Another team in QLD is cannibalisation, by the same token. You're taking fans, or potential fans, from the other QLD franchises.



The difference is, the people in Perth don't have a local team - or even another team in that state.







There are way more people in the North-West than Bridgend. I would not suggest that Widnes are therefore incomparably the better bet vs. Celtic Crusaders.



I believe you need ambition, not to simply play a holding game. It's bizarre to see RL in Aus not using that strength to expand, and yet in Europe RL is weak and is going for it.







And yet it's still dusting the NRL for money and support. That should not be happening, and it would be less likely to maintain that situation with a team in Perth, for example.







Queensland is fine, just as Vic is fine for AFL. But the AFL were not content to simply be a power outside of NSW and QLD.



More QLD teams is a good idea, but alongside underperforming NSW clubs and to the exclusion of everywhere else?



I simply don't agree that a Perth team would somehow cannibalise support from Sydney.







That strategy has not done too badly in terms of TV money - and that's without any international component.







They're already fans.







I'm not convinced on the merits of Adelaide either.

1. true enough but with the other benefits qld teams bring, its a good start to say profits are important, or at least the ability to be strong financially.



2. moving teams when they are surviving is wrong. if they have no other option fine, but when they are doing well enough it alienates fans. should widnes be moved to liverpool for example? or worse, to london?



3. canibilization is more when you kill off one team for another. you gain some fans but lose others, probably in the same numbers. if you want genuine expansion then you need more teams.



4. yes thats true, the RFL are doing a great job and showing more b&&ls than the NRL.



5. some truth there but lots of it is due to the Super Leauge War. before that we were doing very well financially but then news ltd became owners of the game and reduced the ability to freely sell our tv deals. packer and murdoch have worked hand in hand at the cost of the game.



6. sydney RL clubs on the whole get average crowds and have OK finances (yes the pokie tax is affecting things but it appears to be stabilizing). canberra, warriors and melbourne get less fans than the sydney clubs so should they be kicked out as well.



indeed perth might struggle to average 15,000, on the criteria of having less crowds than average, they shouldnt be in as well.



7. it would if you involve kicking out a sydney team (or moving it) for a perth team. the fans of the sydney team (most) would be lost to RL.





the weakest sydney clubs were souths and cronulla and both have / are turning things around so have a future in their current environments. if the NRL wants a perth club it has to be via increasing the number of teams.



remember perth were in the arl in 1995. they turned their back on the ARL and went to news ltd. news ltd ended up killing them off when the time was right and they got the Pay TV rights they were after. so already perth has cost / damaged the game. why should more clubs have to die to give perth another chance? they stuffed up their chance before and really there are other areas which deserve an nrl team.



the way gallop has been talking, he gives perth no chance any time soon and keeps talking about west brisbane or somewhere in queensland

I don't think you're getting my point; I wouldn't be the one proposing moving Widnes to Liverpool or London, because that would presuppose that they would be more successful elsewhere. I also wouldn't be the one to neglect expansion teams like Canberra, NZ and Melbourne - I'm the one proposing that a greater emphasis is placed on non-NSW/QLD teams, including expansion into those areas



Your argument is that QLD needs more teams, and they're guaranteed to be successes there. It's the exact [iopposite[/i situation to moving Widnes to London, where you would have a relatively strong team moving from a strong RL area to one with comparably little support for the game.



Moving a relatively weak club from Sydney to an area like QLD is entirely different, the [iopposite[/i of moving Widnes to London or Liverpool.







That's not cannibalisation, IMO. Moving Cronulla to Newcastle would be cannibalisation (ignoring that they would be laughed out of town).



It's swapping a struggling club in a saturated area for an entirely new market; I don't think it's the same thing as cannibalisation.



Another QLD team is closer to cannibalisation than what I proposed.







Ideally, nobody would have to move. But if it came to the crunch, I'd take the loss of 15k in an enormous market which is already saturated with RL to gain 15k, and therefore a very solid foothold, in an expansion area like Perth.







Why did Perth have to die to give other teams a chance? If it's not fair that other teams suffer to get Perth in now, why was it fair for Perth to suffer so they could be in?

1. perth made their bed going to news ltd. that they dont have a team is their own fault.



2. cronulla isnt struggling. they get 13,000 crowds, and have lots of assets. sure they arent a massive club but they are doing well enough and plans are they will get better.



3. ive seen what losing clubs in sydney means. sydney is the biggest area in the world where RL is strong, why should that be weakened ?



4. the only way to do it properly (expansion) is to expand the numbers in the the nrl. sure if a sydney team is about to go broke they can move then. but to force a perfectly viable club to move for somewhere like perth would be really dumb.



5. looking 20 years down the track if we can sustain our position in queensland well be far and away above AFL, so thats where we should focus. queensland NRL clubs are setting the benchmark and they clearly need more teams.



6. if its 2 teams in 2012 then one will be queensland for sure. the other, take your pick from central coast, wellington or perth. central coast is being left in case a sydney team chooses to go there, but none has taken the $8 million on offer so far so lets see what happens there.



7. what im saying is we dont really need perth to be the strongest football code in australia. we do need queensland though. so if we have to pick, i can live without perth or adelaide to get more queensland teams, and probably central coast as well.



8. id like to see the nrl add in the long term - 2 more teams in queensland, central coast, wellington / southern orcas, perth, PNG.



22 teams, play each other once for 21? rounds.

Any credibility you might have had has now vanished.

Yeah i used to like Origin, back when i was a kid, much like you are no doubt now





Now it just bores me & i'd say a hell of a lot of other people.



As for the swans, hate them, never been to a game, never watched a game.



I still say AFL all over us, the biggest market is still Sydney for League & everyones to busy & got to much going on & to many things to choose from to really give a toss, hence Sydney clubs at most only get 16000 odd average at best.



All you can keep bringing up is three origin games that are most years hit & miss.



As for the World Cup, do you really think most people even know its on??



I know its going to happen, will i bother to watch games? probably not, will i be Surfing every chance i get??..you feckin bet, most people are over League now, the crowds will be a pretty big dissapointment i reckon, you'll have a few thousand weirdo muppets from England coming over for the greatest show on earth & nobody will be home

And yet Aukland, Brisbane, Canberra, Canterbury, Cronulla, NQ and Penrith do?



That argument doesn't make sense.







You've completely ignored the point of the post again.







Ideally, it shouldn't, as I said. But, as I said, given the choice between losing one of the weaker Sydney teams to gain the same fan base elsewhere in an untapped market seems a worthwhile exchange.



Sydney would not be lost to RL on the back of one team moving. But that one team could open up a new market elsewhere.







Which is why I haven't suggested doing that.







I agree, QLD need another team. But I don't agree that the NRL should do merely that, and feel smug. there are other markets which need to be addressed alongside this.







I always get slightly nervous when people mention Wellington. NZ produce loads of top players, but I'm not sure they're quite ready for another NRL franchise.



From what I can gather, outside of the heart of RL in NZ (Aukland) Wellington is the next strongest area.







Adelaide, I can understand. Not Perth; you're always going to have less TV cash than the AFL.



"Look! We've got another team in QLD!"

"So what? They were all watching the NRL anyway, it adds no extra value to our TV stations."







Looks good, but that setup will be a long, [ilong[/i way off.



I'm intrigued by a PNG team, but can't for the life of me see how it would be arranged.



I'm sure a good performance from the Kumuls in the coming weeks would increase the calls for such a team, but unfortunately I don't think the money or the political will is there.

maybe you arent much of a RL fan mate.



im going to 7 WC games myself, and cant wait for it actually.



since the final is close to sold out, you really should read the papers in this country before sprouting the BS you do.



and do you surf in the dark champ, most of the WC games are held at night!.













origin

NZ Warriors.

Internationals



vs AFL - collingwood vs carlton

news ltd chose which SL clubs to keep and which to kill off. no perth team now is the fault of news ltd. news ltd had the power to make the choice because perth went to news ltd. so its their fault they are no longer in.



im not saying we should ignore perth forever. i am saying though that other areas can offer more for the game now, and if we ignore perth next time round its not that bad.



just because AFL has a team in all capitals doesnt mean we need them now.



more queensland teams would improve the ratings as there would be more high ratings games in queensland which they would watch. more people from queensland would watch a game form their club than a perth team.



PNG - the nrl has looked at a joint venture between darwin and PNG, with darwin being the training facilities and 1/2 the games and PNG the rest.



re wellington - given the number of kiwi RL players in the nrl and overseas, NZ could easily handle another side. indeed we would keep more of our juniors that go to the dark side.

The Gold Coast were also axed in the formation of the NRL; they therefore shouldn't be in the NRL. They made their bed by staying with the ARL, etc.







I'm not suggesting you are!



But long term plans need the planning to start [inow[/i. The Perth junior team is doing all the right things, with apparent support from the appropriate people in the game.







Remind me, what is the money difference in the TV contracts between the NRL and the AFL?







But the Perth team brings greater exposure, and is a more powerful statement to the press and the RL fans in Aus. It opens up a market you otherwise would not have access to.







Seems like a half measure, to me; I'd prefer the franchise to be based in PNG, but I appreciate the difficulties with that.







Most of the NZ juniors seem to come from the NRL academies, so I'm not sure those that leave for RU are motivated by being unable to get a place in any other NRL team. They're motivated by money; another NRL team means more places available at first grade (more cash), and in Wellington is undoubtably more attractive than in Aus for native NZ'ers.



But I don't believe we're not losing juniors because there's not enough teams, we're losing juniors because we're up against the allure of an All Blacks jersey, and fair enough.