SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA - AUGUST 23: NRL CEO Todd Greenberg speaks to the media during a NRL Media opportunity in recognition of the NRL becoming the first national sporting organisation to reach 'Elevate' status, at Rugby League Central on August 23, 2018 in Sydney, Australia. (Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)

NRL CEO Todd Greenberg was questioned recently on the future of the game and expansion. He has stated that some hard discussions need to be had with clubs as the game maps out its future. So what does this mean?

If you ask all the experts on the game, they tell you there are too many Sydney teams in the NRL and sooner or later teams will need to either relocate, merge or die!

The same experts will tell you the game needs a second Brisbane team and a team based in Perth. They also think the game can only sustain 16 teams. So with the addition of two new teams, how do the existing 16 fit into a new 16 National competition?

During an interview with Gus Gould, Greenberg suggested a Criteria to act as means to measure the clubs fate. For those who remember the dark days of Super League and its aftermath how the ARL introduced its criteria to move into the NRL era.

The criteria used back then was ambiguous to say the least. It's metrics seamed to favour some teams over others and led to the inevitable demise and merger of traditional clubs and the exile of the pride of the league South Sydney Rabbitohs.

Thankfully the Souths fans protested and along with other fans of the game marched the streets of Sydney and eventually challenged their exclusion in the courts to win back their rightful place in the NRL.

So the NRL has a challenge on their hands. How to expand the game nationally without hurting its existing base to avoid the same disillusionment and fightback the Souths fans displayed in the late 1990's.

By having a set criteria that is equal to all clubs without ambiguity is a challenge in itself but necessary to giving clubs the heads up on what the criteria will consist of. By doing so the NRL will be giving each club equal standing and will build fans expectations of what may happen to their club if they fail to meet set criteria.

Logically it would seem once a club fails to meet metrics of the set criteria the NRL will inform the club they either relocate or die. The club would then have present that proposal to their fan base. Good luck with that!

So what would the criteria be based on? How will the metrics be measured?
Can it be set to be fair for all clubs?
Will the NRL give clubs warnings?
Those are the questions I don't have an answer.

How about this scenario!
Is a club with the ability to attract sponsorship dollars but struggles to attract fans to games and a small geographical junior area a stronger club than a club that struggles with sponsorships but has decent attendance and a huge junior area?

This is the same question that was asked of the metrics in the dark days over 20 years ago. Which it seemed to be ignored and mostly argued to fit and favour the clubs with the most off field influence and financial God fathers and backers.

Will the traditional fan base except their team being relocated? The majority no. North Sydney should be a case study for the abandonment of fans. For all the rhetoric from some that we should look to the AFL and how the Swans and Lions have prospered since being relocated forget 2 points.

The first is that it is never their team under threat and the second, The AFL never went through Super League. Both clubs were on deaths door and had to relocate.

Can you imagine a Tigers fan like myself who has already gone through a merger then having to see my merged team relocate to Perth! Laurie Nicholls would be rolling around in his grave Mr Beattie!

Personally, I want to see the NRL expand. Brisbane and Perth definitely need new teams. So do other areas like Cairns and the Central Coast or Ipswich and even Adelaide. Where ever they decide to move I would be happy. I just don't want that to come at the expense of a Sydney Team. Let them build their own teams have their own history.

The NRL will have enormous pressure from its broadcast partner who will want more saturation of the market without having to outlay higher production costs. This will be the payoff for the highest ever deal made for the TV rights of Rugby League.

Although fans will argue an extra game played if the competition expands to 18 teams would increase both TV audience and advertising the networks will argue that the cost of production of an extra game doesn't justify an extra game.

So to take everything into consideration the NRL wants a national footprint. It's preferred number of teams is 16. It would prefer to expand by relocation. Sydney teams would be under threat to merge or relocate. A criteria may be used to meet this goal. TV partner has no appetite for an additional game each week.

Is it just me or does this smell a bit like Super League? A national game with less Sydney teams controlled by a TV network. Funny at the time when the then ARL and Super League came together it was seen as a win for the establishment.

ARL may have won the battle but Super League has now won the war. Now 20 years later it would seem Murdoch will get pretty much what he wanted in the mid 1990's. Some will hate me bringing   up Super League in this article but I see comments from former SL boss John Ribot calling for Cronulla and Manly to be moved on.

I think it will get very ugly if NRL goes down the path of relocation. It is true Sydney has too many teams but understand this is where the game started where it's history and tradition lives.|

Yes, the AFL has been successful with the relocation of 2 teams from the traditional base of Melbourne. However during the same time Sydney lost Newtown, North Sydney saw the merger of 3 other traditional teams and suffered through a civil war.

The game needs to grow and new teams in new areas is a must but not at the expense of your fan base. They say no one person or club is bigger than the game this is true but the power of fans is larger just ask the Rabbitohs fans.

I have a letter from Neil Whittaker from 20 years ago declining my idea of a 20 Team 2 conference system. I still feel this is the way forward.

Let me know your thoughts of expansion v relocation!

5 COMMENTS

  1. Lets hope this current bunch of administrators have learnt something from the past. But its always the mighty $ that ends up doing all the talking. Stuff the loyal fans that have got the game to where it is. As long as the administrators pick up their hefty bonuses from new tv deals thats all that matter to them.

  2. For starters if a club does not have a home ground in its own district then find them a home ground in Perth or Brisbane. Souffffths must be booted again, playing in the western suburbs of Sydney and Canterbury Bankstown are playing out of their heartland also.

    Every other club has a home ground. Souffffths are like the Hitler take over merchants of ww2, by marching off and claiming other peoples country/disticts. Souffths have stolen large parcels of Easts/Glebe/Newtown/Balmain districts Now they are marching off to take the Western Suburbs around the Olympic Park 20 kms away from soufffths Sydney. Isn’t it time they are given PERTH. Lets put an end to these thieving scoundrels💪🐔👍🤣😂😆😁😆😂🤣😂😆😁🎱🎱🎱🎱🎱🎱🎱🎱.

  3. If the NRL think relocating a team will mean keeping all the Sydney fans and adding new fans from Perth or Brisbane they are dreaming.
    I don’t think Perth or Brisbane will support a relocated reject Sydney team.
    The Brisbane Sea Eagles, the Brisbane Sharks or even the (enormously unlikely) Brisbane Roosters I can’t see attracting any local support. It would be as popular as the Storm relocating to Sydney to be the Sydney Storm. There is too much history and rivalry to just forget about.

  4. Funny how an eventful week can change a “plan” and alter a tiring and long winded discussion. The elephant in the room seems to be the massive financial windfall that has come the way of Cronulla, who were the names on every haters lips in relocation discussions. Now that that one seems to be well and truly put to bed much of the emotion and vitriol for certain quarters seems to have died down. Going from one of the least financially secure to one of the strongest with a few strokes of the pen must be irking some no doubt. The Sharks will not be going anywhere now regardless of any geographical or junior league base considerations etc. So we now find ourselves in a situation where nobody that matters is game to mention a “logical” club for relocation (even though we all probably harbour suspicions) from what is really, and deservedly so, the NRL’s heartland in Sydney and we look onwards to slanting the discussion more towards an expansion and tackling any issues involved in quality player base numbers. I for one would like to see what’s left of the tradition remain with no more mergers and a new team or two expanded into growth areas.

  5. 2 tier system. 10 teams each.. start the oldest clubs in tier 1 and the remaining 6 (probs Canberra bris melb NZ NQ GC..depends how you want to define oldest) plus 4 more new teams in tier 2.

    The top 4 in div2 move up to div1 and the bottom 4 of div1 slide down to div2 each year.

    the idea of teams like melb and bris starting in div2 cause they will get into div 1 within a year and Sydney clubs that are just bookends of the current comp if they can’t produce on the field it will be no one’s fault but their own

Comments are closed.