17th team for certain and 18th team a possibility

[NorfolkStreetKid]

I know this is OUT THERE, but I would love to see a truly National game over the next 5 to 10 years. With a team in Perth, and Adelaide, two in Brisbane, and two in Melbourne. Maybe even another one in NZ, but still only 18 teams max. Play 17 teams once, and 9 teams twice, 26 rounds plus 2 byes . That would mean 12 teams outside Sydney and 6 Sydney teams, so 3 relocate, probably to Perth, Melbourne and Adelaide. Those 3 teams would be heavily subsidised for the first 5 years, probably with a 25% increased salary cap, plus extra cash for promotion, subsidised seat prices, etc. So the NRL would have to put out a criteria which teams must meet to play in the comp and make sure that relocation was a no brainer for two teams. Currently those teams would come from Wests, Bulldogs, Saints or Cronulla, The Western Tigers, Melbourne Sharks and the Adelaide Bulldogs perhaps. The game would make a hell of a lot more money, and so would ALL the clubs.

[Kentucky_Fried_Rooster]

Not enough talent but 22 teams would be perfect while playing each other once. Have teams in Perth, Hobart, Adelaide and possibly Darwin to make it a national competition.
Every second year you play a team at home and the next year away.

The game seemed to be going this way until a few d1ckheads got involved because they didn’t win the pay television rights in the 90s.

[King Salvo]

I know this is OUT THERE, but I would love to see a truly National game over the next 5 to 10 years. With a team in Perth, and Adelaide, two in Brisbane, and two in Melbourne. Maybe even another one in NZ, but still only 18 teams max. Play 17 teams once, and 9 teams twice, 26 rounds plus 2 byes . That would mean 12 teams outside Sydney and 6 Sydney teams, so 3 relocate, probably to Perth, Melbourne and Adelaide. Those 3 teams would be heavily subsidised for the first 5 years, probably with a 25% increased salary cap, plus extra cash for promotion, subsidised seat prices, etc. So the NRL would have to put out a criteria which teams must meet to play in the comp and make sure that relocation was a no brainer for two teams. Currently those teams would come from Wests, Bulldogs, Saints or Cronulla, The Western Tigers, Melbourne Sharks and the Adelaide Bulldogs perhaps. The game would make a hell of a lot more money, and so would ALL the clubs.

Melbourne have a side already.

If your cutting Sydney Teams back to 6 then the merges would be Parramatta and Penrih / Sharks and Dragons / Wests Tigers and Bulldogs- 13 teams plus second Brisbane team/ Perth and Second NZ Team - 16 teams.

2 conferences as follows- 22 games - play teams in your own group twice ( 14 games) and teams in the other group once( 8 games ).

Finals either top 5 in each group with the group winner playing off for overall champion like the NFL or top 4 from each group play each other in a conference cross over finals series i.e qualifying finals 1 v 2 and elimination finals 3 v 4 first week and so on -similar to current final series format

Conference 1 - 6 Sydney Teams / NZ Team/Perth

Conference 2 - 4 QLD teams /NZ Team /Newcastle/Canberra/Melbourne

[NorfolkStreetKid]

Melbourne have a side already- if your cutting Sydney Teams back to 6 then the merges would be Parramatta and Penrih / Sharks and Dragons / Wests Tigers and Bulldogs- 13 teams plus second Brisbane team/ Perth and Second NZ Team - 16 teams - 2 conferences as follows- 22 games - play teams in your own group twice ( 14 games) and teams in the other group once( 8 games ) - Finals either top 5 in each group with the group winner playing off for overall champion like the NFL or top 4 from each group play each other in a conference cross over finals series i.e qualifying finals 1 v 2 and elimination finals 3 v 4 first week and so on -similar to current final series format

Conference 1 - 6 Sydney Teams / NZ Team/Perth

Conference 2 - 4 QLD teams /NZ Team /Newcastle/Canberra/Melbourne

I think Melbourne needs TWO teams, so they get a team playing footy there every week. I also believe moving established teams and structures to Perth and Adelaide and Melbourne will be more successful faster than starting new teams from scratch, and avoid adding more teams to the comp. I thing re homing teams is better than merging teams, because they retain their identity. If rehomed teams played 3 or 4 of their home games against Sydney teams in Sydney for the first few years it would still give their fans a chance to see them live. The vast majority of fans watch the game on TV, If all 8 games for the week get total crowd attendance of say 150,000, they probably get a TV audience of at least 10 TIMES THAT, probably more. Having fewer teams in Sydney will happen eventually, just depends when.

[Thirteen]

I know this is OUT THERE, but I would love to see a truly National game over the next 5 to 10 years. With a team in Perth, and Adelaide, two in Brisbane, and two in Melbourne. Maybe even another one in NZ, but still only 18 teams max. Play 17 teams once, and 9 teams twice, 26 rounds plus 2 byes . That would mean 12 teams outside Sydney and 6 Sydney teams, so 3 relocate, probably to Perth, Melbourne and Adelaide. Those 3 teams would be heavily subsidised for the first 5 years, probably with a 25% increased salary cap, plus extra cash for promotion, subsidised seat prices, etc. So the NRL would have to put out a criteria which teams must meet to play in the comp and make sure that relocation was a no brainer for two teams. Currently those teams would come from Wests, Bulldogs, Saints or Cronulla, The Western Tigers, Melbourne Sharks and the Adelaide Bulldogs perhaps. The game would make a hell of a lot more money, and so would ALL the clubs.

Ideally yes Mate but having so many teams would severely compromise the standard of footy. There are only so many first grade standard players out there.

[Thirteen]

if nrl went to conferences, ill stop watching .

Matty you are more likely to give up the bong than stop watching.

[Jacks Fur Coat]

Ideally yes Mate but having so many teams would severely compromise the standard of footy. There are only so many first grade standard players out there.

I've never supported the argument that there aren't enough good players out there.

It's more about having the right development and training opportunities to harness the talent. A serious and bold expansion program should build that base first.

[Thirteen]

I've never supported the argument that there aren't enough good players out there.

It's more about having the right development and training opportunities to harness the talent. A serious and bold expansion program should build that base first.

I just wouldn’t want to see the standard of the comp compromised. The great thing about the NRL is that on their day most teams are competitive. Even if the right development program is in place it would take years for the fruit to ripen. Maybe expansion shouldn’t be on the cards till then.

[NorfolkStreetKid]

Ideally yes Mate but having so many teams would severely compromise the standard of footy. There are only so many first grade standard players out there.

Thanks mate. My suggestion only has 2 more teams, including the one they are already adding in Brisbane plus a second team in NZ..... and that would have plenty of local talent to choose from. As I said at first, ITS WAY OUT THERE, and probably will never happen, just something I would like to see. Imagine there was no NRL existing now, and it was about to be set up, and they wanted it to have 16 teams the template would not have 9 teams in Sydney and 7 teams for the rest of Australia, it would probably be like I said, Perth, Adelaide, 2 in Melbourne, Canberra, Newcastle, Gold Coast, 2 in Brisbane, Townsville, and 6 in Sydney. and to add 2 in NZ would take it to 18.

[King Salvo]

I think Melbourne needs TWO teams, so they get a team playing footy there every week. I also believe moving established teams and structures to Perth and Adelaide and Melbourne will be more successful faster than starting new teams from scratch, and avoid adding more teams to the comp. I thing re homing teams is better than merging teams, because they retain their identity. If rehomed teams played 3 or 4 of their home games against Sydney teams in Sydney for the first few years it would still give their fans a chance to see them live. The vast majority of fans watch the game on TV, If all 8 games for the week get total crowd attendance of say 150,000, they probably get a TV audience of at least 10 TIMES THAT, probably more. Having fewer teams in Sydney will happen eventually, just depends when.

mmm there's this sport called AFL so Melbourne/Victoria were lucky to have one team and certainly 100% will never have 2 - If Storm were not successful early on they would have ended up like the Crushers and Reds - out of the Comp.

Parra and Penrith can merge - become Western Sydney - Sharks and Dragons merge and Possibly Souffs and become Southern Sydney-Illawarra - Wests Tigers and Bulldogs merge and become Macarthur South Western Sydney.

Souffs were close to merging with the Sharks had a heads of agreement until Piggins stepped in- in that case could even get down to as low as 5 Sydney Teams covering the Sydney and Beyond areas - North/South -Illawarra/East/West and Macarthur-South West.

If 5 Sydney teams - could be 5 Queensland teams plus Knights/Storm/2 NZ sides/ Perth/Raiders- 16 teams still - 2 conferences

Conference 1- 5 Sydney and Beyond teams plus 1 NZ team/ Raiders plus Perth - 8

Conference 2 - 5 QLD teams plus 1 NZ team / Knights and Storm- 8

Dont see the NRL going back to Adelaide or having a team in Tassie or NT

[Mickie Lane]

mmm there's this sport called AFL so Melbourne/Victoria were lucky to have one team and certainly 100% will never have 2 - If Storm were not successful early on they would have ended up like the Crushers and Reds - out of the Comp.

Parra and Penrith can merge - become Western Sydney - Sharks and Dragons merge and Possibly Souffs and become Southern Sydney-Illawarra - Wests Tigers and Bulldogs merge and become Macarthur South Western Sydney.

Souffs were close to merging with the Sharks had a heads of agreement until Piggins stepped in- in that case could even get down to as low as 5 Sydney Teams covering the Sydney and Beyond areas - North/South -Illawarra/East/West and Macarthur-South West.

If 5 Sydney teams - could be 5 Queensland teams plus Knights/Storm/2 NZ sides/ Perth/Raiders- 16 teams still - 2 conferences

Conference 1- 5 Sydney and Beyond teams plus 1 NZ team/ Raiders plus Perth - 8

Conference 2 - 5 QLD teams plus 1 NZ team / Knights and Storm- 8

Dont see the NRL going back to Adelaide or having a team in Tassie or NT

Do you think a 2 conference comp would be good?
That unknown Australian company that has acquired the rights to the EPL also has the rights the the Serbian Rugby League is there any chance they could fit into a conference?

[King Salvo]

Do you think a 2 conference comp would be good?
That unknown Australian company that has acquired the rights to the EPL also has the rights the the Serbian Rugby League is there any chance they could fit into a conference?

It's not a case of if it is a case of when it will happen as the article clearly shows they are working towards 2 conferences or pools as Abdo calls them.

Second Brisbane and NZ teams for 18 teams - 2 conferences/pools of 9 teams.

Whether it will be top 5 in each conference/pool and the conference/pool winners playing off or a cross over finals series between the conferences/pools is yet to be determined.