Are there too many Sydney teams or not enough fanatical supporters?

[Slackboy72]

It's all well and good to say cut Melbourne but what's your logic behind that?

Well the discussion was concerning who would get cut assuming we had to cut Sydney teams down to 6. I was trying to point out though that even though there are too many teams in Sydney the worst performing Sydney team draws more crowds and is more profitable than the Warriors, Storm and Raiders.

As to the Storm the fact is
1. they aren't profitable;
2. their supporters don't travel well;
3. Melbourne produces no juniors of quality or note; and
4. News Ltd are contractually bound to sell their interest in them.

Once this happens Melbourne will fold very quickly. I don't need to tell you about the antagonistic attitude of the Victorian media and the Victorian public. If they could stand on their own two feet then no problem but when you don't have someone pumping in $13.5m in sponsorship money then how can you survive when you're already losing $750k a year when they do?

Considering we've lost Newtown, Norths, the Chargers and Western Reds for these reasons why does Melbourne get spared? They don't add anything to TV rights cause noone f#$%ing shows the league down there (well not at a godly hour).

I accept that the Warriors may bring more money for NZ TV rights. The problem I have though is the trouble fans have crossing the tasman to support them and their opposition. How much extra cash are those TV rights making for the competition and the clubs who have to fly to NZ? And why does the competition need to be 'international'? We got plenty of New Zealand players in Australia before the Warriors so any argument of fostering league there is moot.

 

[Ice777]

As to the Storm the fact is
1. they aren't profitable;
2. their supporters don't travel well;
3. Melbourne produces no juniors of quality or note; and
4. News Ltd are contractually bound to sell their interest in them.



Considering we've lost Newtown, Norths, the Chargers and Western Reds for these reasons why does Melbourne get spared? They don't add anything to TV rights cause noone f#$%ing shows the league down there (well not at a godly hour).

Just some facts on your "facts"

1. They aren't profitable but on the same token they aren't costing the NRL money. But if you did your homework which isn't hard you'll find that we aint Robinson Crusoe when it come to unprofitable clubs in the NRL. But even so, it's only News that it's costing and not the NRL so that has f**k all to do with your argument.

2. What does our supporters travelling have to do with anything? We certainly have no less fans travelling than what Sydney clubs do when it comes to seeing our team interstate. Put it this way, i only see a small handfull of opposition fans at each game at OP and it's certainly no more and often less than what travels to Sydney/Brisbane to see our games. Lets also not forget that our team travels every second week which makes it alot less affordable, not around once a month like Sydney teams. It's one thing to go across town to see your team play like most Sydney clubs as opposed than to crossing the border. Then again many Sydney supporters have trouble crossing even a few suburbs let alone the border. But again, our fans not "traveling" isn't costing the NRL money so it has f**k all to do with your argument.

3. No we haven't got any juniors to play first grade YET. But once more, that's not costing the NRL money so it has f**k all to do with your argument.

4. If and when that happens then we'll worry about it then. But until then, it's only costing News money and not the NRL so it has f**k all to do with your argument.

To add to what you said, nobody watches us on tv down here because the NRL were too gutless to stipulate and demand that they have to show rugby league games down here live or at the very least at a reasonable hour. If they showed a bit of backbone in that respect then maybe they would've got the tv rights they deserved and much closer to what the AFL got when they demanded the same things in the northern states. So in that respect, again it wasn't the Storm that cost them the money, it was the NRL themselves.

I notice how you conveniently left out the point of what the Storm would bring to the comp in regards to enticing a national sponsor with a potential 3.6 million people to see their product. Would you not be more inclined to put much more money into sponsoring something when there's potentially millions more people that will see it?

 

[Perth Red]

I despair for the future of RL sometimes. Cut Melbourne and the Warriors? Some people just live in cloud cuckoo land!

 

[bobmar28]

Amalgamation or "merging" teams is a terrible idea. You end up losing up to 50% of both teams fans, whereas if you re-locate you may lose some fans from the existing area but you will atleast gain some new ones in the new area. No matter what you do there is going to be a lot of unhappy fans but re-locating is the best compromise, plus there is no tradition lost. If the Sharks moved to CC or even Perth I think the rivalry with the Dragons would not die.

I can't agree with that. Who wants to drive up the freeway to see their team play on the central coast when with a merger you could go and watch your new team play out of the same stadium where the old team played.

 

[Lockyer4President!]

THe problem is management that can't realise a club's potential.

Agreed.

 

[griff]

I can't agree with that. Who wants to drive up the freeway to see their team play on the central coast when with a merger you could go and watch your new team play out of the same stadium where the old team played.

because it isn't your team anymore

 

[donkey|rope]

If we were to cut Penrith

How the f**k are you going to cut the most important club in terms of junior development in the NSW region? You may as well bend over before the AFL and say "take Sydney"

 

[beave]

slackboy, good god man, have you lost your mind???

 

[c_eagle]

I'd say every current club in Sydney has a latent fan base big enough to support a viable NRL team. The trick is to turn the casual fan into a fee paying member, like the AFL.

1 person in Sydney is worth two in the bush.

 

[Slackboy72]

The latent fan base may be there but they're not signing up for memberships or turning up to games.

 

[Angry_eel]

The latent fan base may be there but they're not signing up for memberships or turning up to games.

They're not signing up or the clubs aren't interested in memberships? Clubs need to market themselves better and put out better membership packages like the AFL clubs do.

ffs, Parramatta doesn't even have regular fan days. one in the start of the season and thats it. Clubs should try to earn their fans/members rather than take them for granted.

 

[Slackboy72]

Oh ffs! Clubs aren't interested?
Yes the AFL had a brief TV ad asking people to join their club but they've had strong membership numbers before that. And there is no way an AFL membership is somehow better value than an NRL membership package.

 

[badav]

Rugby league would be better for it, if 4 teams occupied Sydney, with geographical territories split roughly split between them. The only problem is the fans from teams that would be kicked out/merged are largely lost to the game and wouldn't support new 'amalgamated' sides.

 

[LeagueXIII]

The only problem is the fans from teams that would be kicked out/merged are largely lost to the game and wouldn't support new 'amalgamated' sides.

Only a minor problem then?

 

[badav]

Only a minor problem then?

i dont recall putting the word minor in my post?

its that big a hiccup, that it would prevent anything like that from happening.

 

[Slackboy72]

Rugby league would be better for it, if 4 teams occupied Sydney, with geographical territories split roughly split between them. The only problem is the fans from teams that would be kicked out/merged are largely lost to the game and wouldn't support new 'amalgamated' sides.

I have no problem with what you say but which teams get the chop? And how do you tell their supporters that other teams like Melbourne, Canberra and Warriors stay when they perform worse on financials and crowd numbers?

 

[Angry_eel]

Oh ffs! Clubs aren't interested?
Yes the AFL had a brief TV ad asking people to join their club but they've had strong membership numbers before that. And there is no way an AFL membership is somehow better value than an NRL membership package.

so tell me why do the Swans who've been in Sydney for 25 years have more members than any of the Sydney clubs? they have 30,000 members.

 

[Ice777]

I have no problem with what you say but which teams get the chop? And how do you tell their supporters that other teams like Melbourne, Canberra and Warriors stay when they perform worse on financials and crowd numbers?

You keep on carrying on that teams like Melbourne, Canberra and Warriors are losing money but at the same time you're totally dismissing the fact that the majority of the Sydney sides are losing money as well.

I'll say it once more because you're conveniently ignoring the fact that it's only costing the Storm's owners money, not the NRL. The latter aren't propping the Storm up with concessions much like the AFL have been known to do with some of their interstate club. So your calls to have them culled based soley on them losing money is not only ridiculous, it just doesn't make any sense. But then again much of what you've said in this entire thread doesn't make any sense.

Read this article on the state of the Sydney clubs finances. Again i don't want ANY NSW based clubs to merge, relocated or fold. (Thanks to Le Kook who sourced the article)

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23294057-2722,00.html

SYDNEY's ability to sustain nine NRL clubs is again under the spotlight less than a week after the NRL talked of further expansion.

Several club chief executives contacted by The Australian yesterday raised concerns over the ability of all Sydney clubs to survive, given revelations St George Illawarra may be forced to abandon Wollongong due to the impact of increased poker machine tax.

The Dragons have already had a $2 million cut in funding, prompting St George Leagues Club general manager Danny Robinson to contact Premier Morris Iemma with his concerns. As revealed in The Australian yesterday, Robinson warned the Dragons could be forced to leave the Illawarra region because of the financial strain.

Penrith chief executive Glenn Matthews, part of a committee formed to lobby the state Government over the issue, believes natural attrition could claim Sydney clubs unless something is done. "Things aren't getting any easier," Matthews said. "We have tough times ahead. At the end of the day, what Super League was about was trying to decentralise and have a national competition, and not have too many teams in Sydney. There is going to be pressure."

The issues facing Sydney clubs were put into perspective only last week when Brisbane released its financial statements for last year. The Broncos generated more than $24 million in revenue.

By contrast, the vast majority of Sydney clubs are operating on less than half that after leagues club grants are taken out of the equation. Last year the NRL showed figures which suggested 12 clubs were losing money without the aid of their leagues clubs, including three that lost more than $4 million.

As if to further illustrate the game's problems, the NRL showed its clubs where they stood in relation to other sports. Two AFL clubs, Collingwood and West Coast, generated revenue of more than $40 million in 2006. Two Super 14 teams, the Waratahs and Western Force, produced more than $20 million. "From the outside it looks like there's too many clubs (in Sydney)," Brisbane chief executive Bruno Cullen said.

North Queensland chief executive Peter Parr stressed he was unaware of rival clubs' financial details, but said he believed it would be better if there were fewer teams in Sydney. "I would suggest there's too many but I don't know the ins and outs of it," Parr said.

Even Parramatta chief executive Denis Fitzgerald conceded Sydney clubs faced a testing future. "Maybe it's added pressure for amalgamation in Sydney or relocation for a Sydney team," Fitzgerald said of the loss of revenue. "Sydney clubs are under immense financial pressure. We have to get relief somewhere."

South Sydney executive chairman Peter Holmes a Court believes the answer lies in increasing memberships, while Manly is among the clubs looking to expand its revenue base by exploring interstate markets.

The Sea Eagles are poised to play a game on Queensland's Sunshine Coast next year at Stockland Park, a multi-purpose 15,000-seat stadium which is scheduled for completion in 2009.

The privately owned club is also looking at business opportunities in the region.
"I think it's becoming tougher," Mayer said. "At the moment it's a bit early to panic. Every club has to be well and truly aware that their traditional revenue streams are going to be tested.

 

[meltiger]

so tell me why do the Swans who've been in Sydney for 25 years have more members than any of the Sydney clubs? they have 30,000 members.

Simply because the culture fostered in the AFL over the last 25-30 years has been for fans to purchase memberships. It gives you an instant indicator of the sports popularity.


The membership drive is the key growth market for the Sydney sides atm byt cost is also a factor.


I don't know about the other clubs programs, but if they are anything like the WT one, the problem with the membership drive is value for money for the Casual Fan.


Compare the WT program with the Storm's for a second, I have bought memberships for both the last two years, and I'll give you an example of why the Sydney clubs memberships are so low. A bought a Gen Admission ST for Melbourne, that allows ground entry to all games cost me around $130-$140. For $150, I bought a 'Traditional' WT membership, which allows me entry to 5 specific games (2 @ SCG 3 @ Leichhardt).


Clearly, there is a huge price discrepancy there. I'm guessing ground entry this year will be around $20 at the gate, so for 5 games, why would the casual fan who *may* attend games spend an extra $50 rather than just paying at the gate?


On the AFL side, I don't know the Swans prices but they surely wouldn't be all that different to Richmond's - You could get an 11 game ticket for around $200. When you compare that back to the WT pricing structure ... Is it any wonder they have many more members than the League sides, even when the smallest supported team in Sydney would have more supporters than the Swans?


At the moment, whilst I am a big supporter of the membership drive, it does seem more a money take than anything. This expansion of ST's into a Membership drive is a new initiative, so that's ok that there are problems that need to be tweaked but they do need to work on the pricing structure over the next few years. If they don't, you'll largely have the hardcore fans signing up and not the casual fans & the numbers will always be massively shaded by the AFL, regardless of the fact that support nationwide for the two games is largely the same.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Cheapest Bulldogs membership is $165. And with that you get the away games they play at the stadium included as well. It's more than cost which is the problem. It's about getting people used to supporting the club in this manner. Clubs never really pushed this before. But with the govt cuts, they will all have to accept this and really push if they want to make ends meet, those clubs that don't will fall behind, and I suppose a natural attrition of clubs will take place.

EDIT: Note, I am not a Bulldogs member anymore. I work shift work, and because of the NRL's "flexible" scheduling, it makes it impossible to work out if it's worth purchasing as I can't work out how many games I am able to attend.