Through green eyes: Expansion, relocation... what's it all mean for the Canberra Raiders?
Back in the weeks before Christmas, it was announced that the Australian Rugby League Commission had asked the NRL to conduct a study into the "geographic footprint" of rugby league in Australia and the Pacific. The words "expansion" and "relocation" were used, but it didn't attract that much attention.
However, it has suddenly become a little bit more real. News broke overnight that the NRL has re-opened discussions about "perpetual licences" - but the quid pro quo for the NRL is that it would have much broader rights to re-locate clubs that were in financial difficulties, or being sold to new owners, under those proposed licences.
At present, the clubs have "time limited" licences, with the current agreements running to 2022. The clubs want "perpetual licences", as this would significantly enhance the value of their franchises, allowing them the ability to sell them to investors if they so chose.
Comments from Todd Greenberg in the past week have also made clear that expansion of the competition to 18 teams is an option being actively considered.
The words "expansion" and "relocation" have been sensitive subjects in rugby league since the days of the "ARL-Super League war". That "war" was driven by the intersection between sport, broadcasting and population. And the same forces are still at work today.
The bottom line is that if the NRL competition was being set up afresh today, it is unlikely that there would be nine clubs in Sydney, with all the clubs based on the east coast of Australia and in New Zealand.
In the past, an unnamed figure at the NRL reportedly said that if they were starting from scratch, they wouldn't put a pin in the map at Canberra either.
The free to air (FTA) television networks in Australia are based in the five largest State capital cities. That's why sporting codes have been so keen to have a "national" footprint - and by that, they mean teams in those five State capitals. Having teams in those five cities should mean bigger broadcasting deals. They're the biggest cities in the country as well, so that should help getting people through the gates.
The AFL, soccer and cricket have all achieved it. Super League did it over 20 years ago, but that all came crashing down, with teams in Adelaide and Perth abandoned.
Pay TV is a genuinely national broadcasting market. They don't care much if the viewers are in cities or regional areas. But regional viewers don't count for much with the major free to air networks. That's a particular challenge for rugby league.
The code dominates in New South Wales, Queensland and the ACT - half the population, and television viewers, of the country. But the population of the northern/eastern States is much more decentralised than in in the southern/western States. It is why it has made sense for rugby league to have teams in smaller cities like Townsville, Newcastle, Wollongong... and Canberra.
But the code now faces some difficult choices. The Sydney and smaller regional clubs have population bases, on average, of about 500,000 people. Some have less. Brisbane and Melbourne are one team towns. That makes sense for AFL mad Melbourne. But it doesn't make sense in the case of Brisbane. A population of over 2 million league mad people is served by just one club.
The confluence of broadcasting and population means that an extra team in Brisbane and a new team in Perth - and fewer teams in Sydney - make the most sense. Don't be tempted by the idea of more teams in regional areas in New South Wales or Queensland. Those towns simply don't have enough people... and they don't count with the major FTA TV networks.
I don't think expansion to 18 teams is going to fly. It would provide an extra game each week for the broadcasters. But it is questionable whether there is the depth of playing talent to support it. In addtion, if the broadcast revenue doesn't increase commensurately, that means fewer dollars available for the current 16 clubs. And, as we know, some teams have been in precarious financial positions - with the Tigers, Dragons, Knights and Titans all been bailed out by the NRL in recent times. The Sharks have been less than financially stable.
The clubs have been treated generously under the current broadcast deal. The salary cap for each is more than covered by the disbursements from the NRL. But it has been so generous that the financial capacity of the NRL for further bail outs is limited. And any further bail outs shouldn't simply allow for the maintenance of the status quo. The NRL
should be relocating some teams if they're to make the competition more sustainable and more prosperous.
So what does all that mean for the Raiders? If the mooted "perpetual" licences - and greater powers for the NRL to relocate clubs - come to pass?
The AFL, soccer and cricket have all overlooked the national capital when considering expansion. To be blunt, population and broadcasting money are the reasons. If it were an option, that mystery figure at NRL headquarters in Sydney (if they are still there, of course!) might make the same choice today - rather than the one that was taken in 1981.
But I think Raiders fans can rest easy. The Raiders Group has not been immune from criticism, given the lack of success of the football club since they took back ownership. I've pushed for more accountability for success on the field, myself. But there's little doubt that the Raiders Group is stable and in good financial health. And that doesn't come about by accident, it comes about by good financial management. The Canberra Raiders have very solid local backing.
It will also benefit the smaller clubs if the monopoly of the Broncos over Brisbane is broken - as it should produce a more even competition, and a more successful, sustainable one.
We can only now wait and see whether the NRL can pull it off. In the meantime, I'd love to hear your views!
***
What a great win it was for the Raiders in Round 1! I tipped a win, but not a margin of over 20 points, with not a single point scored by the opposition. It was a very good performance in horrible weather conditions. There was no sign of a collapse in the final stages of the game. The work done in the off season on defence and game management was there for all to see. There was reason to be excited by new players like John Bateman, and players in new positions, like Jack Wighton and Josh Papalii. Now for the next test, and it is a tough one, against the clinical, methodical, relentless Melbourne Storm. The Raiders' record against the Storm is poor, with a win rate of a miserable 27 per cent. I'd love to think Canberra can win in their first home game of the season, but the Raiders face a five day turnaround, compared to an eight day turnaround for the Storm. I've tipped a Storm win, but I'm hoping I'm wrong!
***
If you can get off work early tomorrow, make sure you do it! The Raiders return to the Jersey Flegg competition in their own right this year, and they will turn out tomorrow afternoon against the Victoria Thunderbolts from 3:45pm. The Under 20s will be the curtain raiser for quite a number of the Raiders home games in 2019. I was someone who mourned the recent loss of the lower grades from game day. Being able to see the younger players come up through the ranks... well that's what makes you feel you're following a footy club, not a "franchise".
***
The Greenhouse Live will be broadcasting from outside Canberra Stadium after tomorrow night's match. So don't forget to tune in on The Greeenhouse Facebook page... and if you see us, don't be afraid to come up and say hello! And if you're following on line, we love seeing your comments and questions!
Plus follow us on Facebook:
The Greenhouse Forum and Twitter:
@TheGHRaiders
If you can put some sentences together and you'd like to write a regular column for The Greenhouse, let us know! We are keen to have more contributing writers!
