2013 Memberships

[Yosemite Sam]

That's all well and good but if clubs keep moving games away from their home grounds then its the club members that are going to suffer. If I'm paying over $200 for a membership I expect to see 12 home games.

1 home game per year in a regional area would be acceptable but some clubs are moving as many as 3.

I applaud the Roosters stance on not moving games away. It's their fans and members who are the winners, and that's the most important thing.

 

[dimitri]

Bulldogs Memberships go on sale tomorrow!!!

Im pumped!

:crazy:

 

[Expansion]

That's all well and good but if clubs keep moving games away from their home grounds then its the club members that are going to suffer. If I'm paying over $200 for a membership I expect to see 12 home games.

Easy way to overcome this is to make memberships cheaper, more fans will sign on as members because of this as well. Let's face it, it's not like there is a huge demand for Eastern Suburbs games in Sydney anyway, they aren't selling out every match and they are a Sydney based team - teams that should be the ones taking games away for the growth of the game.

1 home game per year in a regional area would be acceptable but some clubs are moving as many as 3.

Those clubs should be applaud for their commitments to growing the game and doing what is in the best interest of the game, which should not outweigh the interest of a club.

I applaud the Roosters stance on not moving games away. It's their fans and members who are the winners, and that's the most important thing.

So the most important thing is not what is in the best interest for the game but what is in the best interest for a small few?

This way of thinking is the old thought process that we as a game need to get away from if we are to prosper as a sport moving forward.

 

[Perth Red]

Clubs need to be reasonably compensated for helping spread the game, they can then use this to make memberships cheaper for their home based fans. Everyone's a winner!

 

[Expansion]

Clubs are already compensated for spreading the game. South Sydney get money to play in Perth, Canterbury Bankstown were getting money to play in Adelaide, and I have even heard that Manly is being compensated for their potential trip to China.

 

[slammingsam]

Souths started there loyalty program 3 years ago - it's called 'they wear the red and green'

 

[Yosemite Sam]

So the most important thing is not what is in the best interest for the game but what is in the best interest for a small few?

The most important thing for the clubs is their fans and building their membership base. As I said I am fine with losing 1 home game per year, but any more than that is overkill.

 

[The Great Dane]

Clubs are already compensated for spreading the game. South Sydney get money to play in Perth, Canterbury Bankstown were getting money to play in Adelaide, and I have even heard that Manly is being compensated for their potential trip to China.

Supposedly both us (the Raider) and Manly would be compensated for the potential trip, but that's just what the Canberra times said so I would take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Expansion]

The most important thing for the clubs is their fans and building their membership base.

Other clubs have been doing this for years with no effect on their memberships numbers, in fact the clubs that have been doing it are some of the higher tallied memberships clubs.

As I said I am fine with losing 1 home game per year, but any more than that is overkill.

Why?

 

[RWB]

Clubs are businesses, their first priority is to look after their stakeholders. If the Independent commission & NRL want to encourage clubs taking their games elsewhere then it's up to them to create strong incentives.

I'm not against taking a game away but I tend to agree with the Roosters decision here, the extra 100k just isn't worth it at the moment. I'm certainly not going to criticise the club or any club for that matter like I said if the IC & NRL really want to push this then it's up to them to make it in the clubs best interests.

 

[Timmah]

I think the Roosters knew the Darwin decision (timing and opponent more than anything) was silly, and have gone 180 in the other direction.

Hopefully they're back on the road in 2014.

 

[RWB]

I think the Roosters knew the Darwin decision (timing and opponent more than anything) was silly, and have gone 180 in the other direction.

Hopefully they're back on the road in 2014.

That's a pretty simplistic look at it, The central coast & New Zealand 'home' games were also failures and there's been a push from the Roosters fans for a long time to get 12 home games a season.

 

[Timmah]

The Central Coast one was a failure in 2011 because they took the traditional Broncos home fixture up the road.

Whenever the Knights' fixture has been moved there, the crowds have generally been healthy - certainly in most cases better than when played in Sydney.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Wait, so let me get this right.

As a part of the commission strategic plan, a plan many of us finally wanted/needed the game to have, clubs are being encourage to spread the game more and play more games in these sort of areas. Along with Mackay, Perth, China, New Zealand etc etc. The Roosters have turned around and said that all their home games will be played in Sydney?

Is this a club looking out for the games best interest?

Does it bother you that your trolling attempts go largely ignored?

 

[RWB]

The Central Coast one was a failure in 2011 because they took the traditional Broncos home fixture up the road.

Whenever the Knights' fixture has been moved there, the crowds have generally been healthy - certainly in most cases better than when played in Sydney.

Crowds were never the primary concern, the win loss record was atrocious. We were essentially jut giving Newcastle a home game. In the end the cons just outweighed the pros.

 

[Expansion]

I think the Roosters knew the Darwin decision (timing and opponent more than anything) was silly, and have gone 180 in the other direction.

Instead of just stating that the Easts Darwin game "silly", why don't you explain why it was silly?

For myself, it took a National Rugby League game to part of the nation that hasn't seen a top flight Rugby League match in years and they took a team there that has been involved in the local community for a number of years. The game even out-drew the competitior's match in Darwin.

Unless there is something else that I am not aware of.

Hopefully they're back on the road in 2014.

Hopefully, but what will they have to do differently to make it a success in 2014 that they haven't done with the Darwin match and previous on-the-road matches?

 

[applesauce]

That's a pretty simplistic look at it, The central coast & New Zealand 'home' games were also failures and there's been a push from the Roosters fans for a long time to get 12 home games a season.

I hope all 10 of them are happy.

 

[Timmah]

Instead of just stating that the Easts Darwin game "silly", why don't you explain why it was silly?

Sorry sir, I didn't realise I had to fit with your posting rules.

I thought it was obvious, from a Roosters fan viewpoint at least. On a results and logic basis, the concept and its timing was ludicrous. They took an away match against a team already familiar with hot, humid conditions to a similar location (i.e. northern Australia) during a warm time of the year (April).

Surely a Darwin match is a smarter idea in say, July or something? They summarily got spanked 50-12 and the members in Sydney lost a game.

For myself, it took a National Rugby League game to part of the nation that hasn't seen a top flight Rugby League match in years and they took a team there that has been involved in the local community for a number of years. The game even out-drew the competitior's match in Darwin.

All great things, speak for themselves. The only downside in the respects you mention above is that the crowd wasn't treated to a quality contest, as one team just ran away with the match.

 

[Expansion]

I thought it was obvious, from a Roosters fan viewpoint at least. On a results and logic basis, the concept and its timing was ludicrous. They took an away match against a team already familiar with hot, humid conditions to a similar location (i.e. northern Australia) during a warm time of the year (April). Surely a Darwin match is a smarter idea in say, July or something?

Forgive for mistaking what appears to be a Bulldogs fan taking a viewpoint of a Roosters fan in my first few weeks of joining the site. Surely its better to take North Queensland to Darwin from a marketing point of view compared to another Sydney team, and in-fact losing a home game between two Sydney teams (two sets of fans) attending. Now for the timing of the match that is something the club couldn't control but now (2013 and beyond) with the game having a more firm grip on the draw you would think something could be worked out between the ARLC and Easts.

They summarily got spanked 50-12 and the members in Sydney lost a game.

The result to me doesn't matter, I hardly think there are fans out there with the point of view that "I'm ok with my club taking games away from our home ground as long as we win". It's all about growing the game which last years event in Darwin helped do, something that needs to be continued in my eyes and seeming as though Easts were the ones to take a game there I think it is in their best interests to keep up that good work before another team steps in (similar to South Sydney in Perth).

 

[RWB]

I don't see how it's in the Roosters best interests, it was nothing more than a cash grab.