2019 Membership

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Position on the ladder over the last few years suggests otherwise.

Actually it proves the point...

Sharks have been successful but your crowds are still shit. Maybe it is because going to the stadium with more than 14k crowds is a nightmare.

I've had to line up at the SFS an all seater.

Just because SFS is shit doesnt mean EVERY stadium will be shit.

SFS was build on spare change, ofcourse it was a cheap piece of shit.

 

[taipan]

But you still accept the fact that 1 clubs cities cruise to success while to over saturated Sydney clubs need to struggle to even achieve a fraction of that?

So applying this: Perth should cruise to success while Sharks will continue to struggle as long as there are 8 other Sydney clubs.

It really sounds like Perth is the team we want to have....

Never argued about 1 city clubs who have a strong rl fan base.

My point was ,is and always will be the smaller clubs are pulling their weight ,despite facilities.And these suburban clubs have membership bases not that much smaller, in a couple of cases bigger than 1 city clubs.

 

[taipan]

...a venue about to be knocked down because it couldn't properly cater for crowds.

And so it should and so should Cronulla upgrade their facilities,which they intend doing in the future.

 

[Timmah]

And so it should and so should Cronulla upgrade their facilities,which they intend doing in the future.

They might wish to get on some solid footing financially before sinking money into stadium upgrades.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Never argued about 1 city clubs who have a strong rl fan base.

My point was ,is and always will be the smaller clubs are pulling their weight ,despite facilities.And these suburban clubs have membership bases not that much smaller, in a couple of cases bigger than 1 city clubs.

Obviously doesnt translate into attendence.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

And so it should and so should Cronulla upgrade their facilities,which they intend doing in the future.

I will stand corrected if it actually works out, but i dont believe it....

Even if you manage to fund a decent stadium (sounds more like a cheap patch-up to justify the big development next door), that doesnt fix the transport problems.

 

[taipan]

Actually it proves the point...

Sharks have been successful but your crowds are still shit. Maybe it is because going to the stadium with more than 14k crowds is a nightmare.



Just because SFS is shit doesnt mean EVERY stadium will be shit.

SFS was build on spare change, of course it was a cheap piece of shit.

Well if I had a 50,000 seat stadium, and the only club in a very strong rl city and averaged 3/5 full,I'd hardly be bagging the other clubs .

Didn't suggest every stadium will be shit.that's you putting words into my mouth.

I attended the SFS in the early days ,when they actually got crowds.It needs refurbishments big time.

 

[Timmah]

Well if I had a 50,000 seat stadium, and the only club in a very strong rl city and averaged 3/5 full,I'd hardly be bagging the other clubs .

Didn't suggest every stadium will be shit.that's you putting words into my mouth.

I attended the SFS in the early days ,when they actually got crowds.It needs refurbishments big time.

You can couch it what ever way you like, but the Broncos have historically had more members than most clubs over the past 10-15 years, and are always the highest averaging crowd at home.

 

[taipan]

I will stand corrected if it actually works out, but i dont believe it....

Even if you manage to fund a decent stadium (sounds more like a cheap patch-up to justify the big development next door), that doesnt fix the transport problems.

At least owning the ground, gives the club some opportunity down the line to do so.Particularly with an upgraded and refurnished Licenced club which will be happening shortly.

"A cheap patchup to justify the big development next door".The development was for the long term future of the club, the stadium down the pecking order.IOW the stadium has does not justify the development.

 

[taipan]

You can couch it what ever way you like, but the Broncos have historically had more members than most clubs over the past 10-15 years, and are always the highest averaging crowd at home.

That's obvious.And so they should.
Hence I cannot understand why cynics continue to bag Sydney Nrl club crowds, without the city to themselves.

 

[taipan]

Obviously doesnt translate into attendence.

We shall see,firstly with the new Parra stadium,a new (fingers crossed) SFS, whether that view still stands.

 

[Timmah]

That's obvious.And so they should.
Hence I cannot understand why cynics continue to bag Sydney Nrl club crowds, without the city to themselves.

Sounds like a pointless, cyclical discussion then.

 

[taipan]

But you still accept the fact that 1 clubs cities cruise to success while to over saturated Sydney clubs need to struggle to even achieve a fraction of that?

So applying this: Perth should cruise to success while Sharks will continue to struggle as long as there are 8 other Sydney clubs.

It really sounds like Perth is the team we want to have....

Not always ,try GC/Newcastle of late/.It still gets down to the cattle you have on the field.Brisbane didn't cruise this year.

Hypothetically if Perth have the players, and a committed fan base in an AFL town(not a rl heartland), they should do well."Cruise to success",very few cruise to success.Sounds to me like computer modelling, not when the action starts.Bit like suggesting Adelaide will cruise along.

I am for expansion, and yes that includes Perth, but I repeat one more time not at the expense of Sydney clubs(unless they are up the creek without a paddle).
There is no reason the code cannot accommodate 18 clubs ,if it wants to become national.

 

[taipan]

Sounds like a pointless, cyclical discussion then.

Correct ,hence(repeating) why the need for cynics to bag Sydney club's crowds and facilities.

Membership(as this is the thread title) for most clubs in Sydney is growing, a fair indication fans want to get behind their respective clubs financially, emotionally and/or physically.

 

[Timmah]

Let's get back to membership shall we?

 

[taipan]

So Sydney is over saturated and each club would do better if there were fewer in the market?

Its your own choice to stay where you are and handcap yourselves with 8 neighbours. I dont think you can expect sympathy because you CHOOSE to stay in a hard situation.

If Sydney club membership numbers were dcelining, if TV ratings were taking decent drops ,if crowds were taking decent drops you'd have a point.
There are fewer clubs n the market in Sydney than there were prior to 1995 and Sydney has grown a hell of a lot since,.
Seems to me Sydney clubs are not doing that that much better ,as a result of chopping and merging.Appears clubs have hardly had big increases with lesser clubs.
You can't assume because a Sydney club is chopped or relocated their fans will remain rock solid.

Whose after sympathy,another out of left field assumption?
Shark's fans appear to be more than happy with the development, the playing strength ,the plans for a refurbishment of the licensed club.Their membership numbers are growing year on year.They won a G/F stationed where they exist.
The club also CHOOSES to stay where they are because 1) they own their ground 2)their fans want it 3)they now have some degree of long term financial security.Not a hard choice really.
Bruno Cullen made the point (when he was there auditing and looking at the development details), he predicted they would be in the top, 4-5 in the comp.

The thing that has handicapped the Sharks is incompetence by some in leadership and the peps episode/Flanno.

 

[taipan]

Let's get back to membership shall we?

Fully agree.
And we are tracking well at this stage overall, but the trend may well be skewed by some clubs with many later joiners, and some overachieving in the early stages(yep even the Sharks).
Is this due to end of season 1 or 2 pass membership?

 

[Knight Vision]

You can couch it what ever way you like, but the Broncos have historically had more members than most clubs over the past 10-15 years, and are always the highest averaging crowd at home.

Given Brisbane are a 1 city team I think their membership numbers are woeful. Any way you want to cut slice or dice it, they should have twice as many members as they usually get. They have a monopoly in Brisbane and it shows in their arrogance and complacency .

I'll cut Storm some slack as they are in an AFL heartland.

 

[Timmah]

Given Brisbane are a 1 city team I think their membership numbers are woeful. Any way you want to cut slice or dice it, they should have twice as many members as they usually get. They have a monopoly in Brisbane and it shows in their arrogance and complacency .

"should have twice as many members as they usually get".... based on what?

Just population? What factors are there that show they don't have as many members as they should?

 

[Quicksilver]

Actually it proves the point...

Sharks have been successful but your crowds are still shit. Maybe it is because going to the stadium with more than 14k crowds is a nightmare.

From what I can gather from reading your whiny posts over the last two months or so, your nightmares basically comprise of things like having to deal with dangerous grasses and waiting in line for 7 minutes for an ice block.