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

[Slackboy72]

All the talk recently of less teams in Sydney has me thinking of how AFL teams in Melbourne are coping (and before you answer, they are coping relatively well to the NRL). It became quite apparent in the late 80s that the VFL as a national product needed to reach out to their markets in WA and SA and that expansion with new teams was needed. However the number of clubs all clustered around the inner city was a 'problem'. The argument goes thus: too many clubs not representing enough people all competing for the same patch of dirt. Remove some teams and there's more territory for everyone, more fans for those left behind, thus more profits.

But this 'problem' wasn't really a problem. In Melbourne, a microcosm in itself, people didn't follow a team because they came from a certain area. They followed a club because their dad followed them or they liked that team when they were a kid. Most people who follow Hawthorn today have never lived in Hawthorn. They probably watched Dipper and Brereton as a kid and latched on. Most Collingwood supporters couldn't afford to live in Collingwood. Where the team is has become irrelevant as we are now much more mobile and transient in where we can, and do, live.

Thusly AFL has adopted a model of making the game easy to get to and in Melbourne, instead of 9 home grounds where the clubs are from they have 2 grounds that are close to transport hubs. The result on crowds has been significant. Collingwood average nearly twice as much now than ten years ago when they moved from Victoria park to the MCG.

Clearly for AFL it is not about how many teams there are in Melbourne but rather how many people support those clubs and how much they are willing to pay to do so. For AFL teams a membership of 30,000 is dissapointing. Collingwood are now one of the premier brands in the country because they can harness their strong supporter base.

Transferring this to NRL the same so-called 'problem' faces most Sydney teams. One doubts wether the majority of rabbitohs supporters actually live near their area. Where you play your home games is no longer relevant for many and in fact playing out of sub-standard 'boutique' grounds in hard to get to locations is hurting the game. Obviously the further out you go then the stronger the pull of local identity is. Regional teams such as Newcastle and Canberra would almost certainly derive the majority of their support from locals, not only because of the homogeneity of their support bases identity with the team but also because they are relatively new teams. They don't have the history that a foundation club has in the common culture. So for most sydney teams it is about the brand of your club and how you sell it.

As such if you were to rank the value of teams as a brand I believe it would fall thus:
Wests Tigers
Canterbury Bulldogs
Manly Sea Eagles
Parramatta Eels
St George Illawarra Dragons
South Sydney Rabbitohs
Sydney Roosters
Cronulla Sharks
Penrith Panthers
(Feel free to argue the ranking on this list. I'm only basing it on average home crowd figures for 2006 and 2007. Yeah, not a good indicator but an indicator nonetheless.)

If you have to lose teams in Sydney to accomodate expansion of the game you would be losing brand value in order to keep the number of slices of pie reasonable. Personally I believe we can't afford anymore than 18 teams given our current piss-poor tv rights deal. We do however need 3 more teams in QLD and one on the central coast to exploit our unrepresented heartland, turning tv-watching supporters in these regions into paid up, bums-on-seats, fanatical supporters. This follows that we maybe need two less teams in Sydney. If we were to cut Penrith and Sharks (regrettable as they are amongst the better run of a bad bunch) then it would be better to do it with amalgamation or relocation. Problem is how do you amalgamate Penrith and Parramatta ot Penrith with Wests and not lose a significant amount of brand value? And how can you move a club like the Sharks whose biggest plus is that they own their own ground?

So the question is, and the problem for rugby league in general, if we can't cut teams how do we extract as much of that brand value for these teams as possible?

 

[whippy]

send the roosters to central coast. or qld. or perth.

 

[mark123]

An interesting question.

People know my views about sydney as much as I love the city and her history.

And if you take a look at the numbers for me, I'd say my argument is there is not enough supporters.

Could there be more created? For sure. But see below as to why its futile with 9 teams.

I would think RL only gets 5% of the population going to games, if that. But an increase is unlikely because its a mountain of work. We all know the ways to make it easier to goto games, stadia, transport, tickets, marketing, value, attraction, addiction, desire-creation, belonging-mentality-creation. For 9 teams the cumulative effort required with the limited funds over 9 teams; it will never happen. Not if we are to rise above mediocrity and reach our full potential.

If you say there is a rough 30% of people who regularly go out to events, and you only get 5% of them, then its a big gap for improvement.

Yet in reality its a figure of 5% of 100%. Because everyone has the potential to be at the game. And yes, there probably is a theoretical way to get everyone to be at a game at some stage.

I look at that and it makes me realise that 5% is very small. Across 9 teams.

Very small.

When you approach these things, you must consider the outcome you want. So what do we want? An example:

Well a goal for me would be to have the smallest number of teams representing the most of the city....teams that can average 30K+ over time in stadiums that are 30K or larger and modern, in areas and with setups that can sustain a revenue of 20-50million dollars per year. The teams need to be able to play out of 3-5 stadiums max that are of modern quality and amenities with capacities no less than 30K. Those stadiums need to easily accessible by as many people as possible. The example list then goes on.

Then you set about to get all that.

Reduce teams, its a rediculous situation otherwise. Those who cry foul are obviously a small but vocal minority. We see such a small percentage going to games and being involved with teams, unless its on tv. Which is not the same quite. I believe in times gone by the reduction of teams was done from a negatively perceived angle, but in the future, with a plan like this, it can be done from a positively perceived angle, and I think that the media and fans can help it be.

Amalgamation or moving sydney clubs must come to pass. For myself, I always thought that the roosters should not be in the comp and the sharks.

Its debatable but I would be having Penrith out west along with Wests Tigers who would move completely away from Balmain forever, forget the Balmain ground, reduce your games there in the coming years to eventual zero. I would have Eels and Bulldogs in the center, but the Bulldogs would focus on capturing more of a southern area over time. In the east I would have the Rabbitohs and Sea Eagles. STG-Illa would be out at the gong, which strangely they seem to be moving away from....see this is what sux about the city.

Its not perfect, but it is without the sharks and Sydney city. Manly in all honesty should be on the central coast right now as the northern eagles. But its not the case. They need a new stadium and its not happening. They should play at the SFS personally therefore. And transport to that ground needs (and is?) being upgraded? Souths already play at Homebush which is west of their current position but thats ok. What the first poster says has always made sense to me and I believe its the way to go for the future.

I wish homebush wasnt hard for everyone to get to. I would like to see a second, more accessible and used stadium in sydney out west in a complimentary location.

Perhaps if they use SFS in the east, homebush and an upgraded or new stadium (that bulldogs will play out of?) 30K+ situated strategically in location to population and transport usage-wise for the center area, plus penrith in the west, that could work better than things are now. SFS for east. So thats just SFS, Homebush, Parramatta stadium (upgraded) new stadium in south centre and Penrith, and the Gong. All with better transport. But with our goal being to play out of the least number of stadiums possible you might remove another 1 or 2 stadia from the list, or relegate 2 to occasional use.

I think we must move from suburban grounds as soon as possible and utilize a system that is easier and better viewing for fans. You ground-share, thats cool. Big deal - it will be a great stadium, so make it your own by bringing along supporter colours, etc!

One would think that stadiums like Parramatta stadium could also be used still in that system as need arises. But I never want to see another game at either shark park, or balmain or brookvale, or kogerah.

Also, with using a low quantity of high quality stadia you would be encouraging what our first poster spoke of - and that is the mobility of support. So the game would spread further amongst the region....if you dont like the bulldogs, then you have another team you can go see.

Makes sense to me, people would be happier. Game would not be crippling itself so much then.

so thats 6 teams, 2 east, 2 center, 2 west.

It could be 4 teams perfectly and honestly. Look, if the gong cant cut it, then why be there. There is no room for st george otherwise in my mind. Unless they replace another teams spot, which would be either bulldogs or manly. Would st george be a strong enough candidate to take RL to the entire (theoretical not withstanding support-mobility) east section of sydney along with Souths? Do Penrith need to be there? Will for instance, a Gong junior nursery and a Penrith Junior Nursery still flourish wihtout NRL teams? Does it leave a hole to big to fill with other clubs? Seems to me the best part about Penrith and the gong right now is there junior nursery's....can that still exist without them?

For mine I would not go with moving Penrith, because I think they are stategical to placement, but I would consider STG gone from gong if need be to replace another east-section team (of which there are 2 avail). Maybe with less teams around STG could play in both the east section of sydney AND the gong still. BUt at a ground other than Kogerah unless its significantly upgraded, which wont happen. Keeping stadiums less, you'd have them at the SFS with better transport.

These questions must be explored. But whoever is best suited should stay. Its easy to write, and its hard to do, but maybe it should happen.

 

[mark123]

double post

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

As such if you were to rank the value of teams as a brand I believe it would fall thus:
Wests Tigers
Canterbury Bulldogs
Manly Sea Eagles
Parramatta Eels
St George Illawarra Dragons
South Sydney Rabbitohs
Sydney Roosters
Cronulla Sharks
Penrith Panthers
(Feel free to argue the ranking on this list. I'm only basing it on average home crowd figures for 2006 and 2007. Yeah, not a good indicator but an indicator nonetheless.)




I think you're a little confused as to what a brand is. It has nothing to do with sales or attendances or whatever. It's how they are perceived emotionally or remembered. Souths were getting 2k at their games when they got kicked out. I would argue that it was their brand that got them the back into the game. Their brand got 100k plus to march for them. Twice! Yet you rank them 6th? So there's a lot more to a brand than crowd figures.
Secondly, I know it's a long shot as my club is so despised (that's a brand in itself) but we're the club that's often referred to as the 'glamour club' by the media. You may hate that but that's the journos' words not mine so I think we sit better than 7th.;-)
Brands are built over time which is why the historical clubs are important to the game so I would look at the overall (100 years) picture than just the last two seasons.
Feel free to argue.
cheers

 

[Slackboy72]

I think you're a little confused as to what a brand is.

Yes I am a little confused because there is no readily discernible way of determining what value a team brings to the league. This is why I used bums-on-seats as a measure as it gives an indication of 'pulling power'. Of course this is just home crowds only and is affected by drops in form but that's beside the point. Ultimately some teams bring more to the table than others and if it was a choice between cutting Parramatta or Penrith then it's a no-brainer as to who you would keep. Ultimately we could even take this beyond Sydney and ask wether the three worst crowd pullers, namely Canberra, Melbourne and the Warriors, are adding to or detracting from the value of rugby league.

 

[Slackboy72]

mark123,
I have no problem with using just homebush and SFS however SFS is hard to get to by public transport.

If it were up to me I would cut the following teams:
Penrith, Cronulla and Souths.

Wests, Parramatta and Bulldogs would play out of homebush and Manly, Easts and Dragons out of SFS. But SFS won't work unless you get better public transport there.

I would also cut Melbourne and the Warriors. Add three QLD teams and have a 14 team comp with a top 5 finals system.

Incidentally of all the suburban grounds still being used Kogarah is the closest to a train station. Still a pain in the arse to get to and still third rate facilities.

 

[flamin]

Mark123 its more like 1-2% of the population attending NRL games in Sydney in any given round - 40K- 80K. Considering how entrenched rugby league is in Sydney that number is pathetic, but will grow with time and stability now that clubs are pushing for memberships - well some are anyway.

 

[Titanic]

Tweaking the system won't work only a major planned overhaul can lift us clear of Sydney-syndrome. The game is wonderfully modern but the infrastructure is stuck back in the 60's somewhere. Also playing one day a week is hampering serious expansion - opening -up the playing rosters, taking a season or three punt to pick-up the gap of quality players needed for expansion. Sponsors are only being seem once a week, TV is only drawn once a week - we are not in the game so to speak. Shout "wear and tear" as much as you like but more games at the NRL level means more interest - from all sectors. Ask any sports marketeer - don't compare this with AFL who aren't a major international sport and can only raise it once a week.

 

[BPS]

I think dumping Sydney teams is a real loser in so many areas. I really believe all you do is alienate a section of fans.

The only way it can happen is through natural attrition. We have to wait until the clubs die naturally or to a place where they decide with their members to relocate or amalgamate with another team.

A logical amalgamation would be say Souths and Cronulla. or Souths and Easts. or StGeorge and cronulla.
All based on close proximity. But what is gained by those clubs??? Souths lose their history, their colours, their name and emblem. Cronulla lose everything too same with Easts. The teams don't form into a better team, they just form into a new identity which alienates fans.

I disagree with your summation of "Brands which mean the most to the league" I cannot see how Wests Tigers comes 1st. Surely Souths, Canterbury, and StGeorge would have the biggest fan base across the country.
Easts would be up there too because of everyones dislike of them. We all need someone to dislike.

To me Wests Tigers would be near last with Penrith and cronulla. Personally with Souths new management I won't be surprised in them pulling 40,000 a week within 3 years.

 

[Slackboy72]

I think dumping Sydney teams is a real loser in so many areas. I really believe all you do is alienate a section of fans.
...
To me Wests Tigers would be near last with Penrith and cronulla. Personally with Souths new management I won't be surprised in them pulling 40,000 a week within 3 years.

Well if you were the Dragons management would you rather host a game with Penrith or the Bulldogs? Playing games against teams whose small supporter base won't travel is bad for the game.

Secondly if Souths pull in 40,000 a week in 3 years I'll walk barefoot and backwards through Martin place.

 

[mongoose]

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.

 

[Garts]

Agree with Mongoose, merging is the worst option. I do not want Manly to relocate however I would much rather that happen than us merge again.

 

[Lego_Man]

Ultimately we could even take this beyond Sydney and ask wether the three worst crowd pullers, namely Canberra, Melbourne and the Warriors, are adding to or detracting from the value of rugby league.

The Warriors provide a considerable amount of cash to the NRL via the sale of tv rights to Sky NZ.

 

[_Johnsy]

I know I'll get flamed from my 'brothers' for saying this. I honestly could not give a flying fugg, so long as the big red V is running around in the premier competition. This is one thing that should never be lost to RL.

 

[Ice777]

mark123,


I would also cut Melbourne and the Warriors. Add three QLD teams and have a 14 team comp with a top 5 finals system.

It's all well and good to say cut Melbourne but what's your logic behind that? Do you think it'll make the NRL stronger or make them more money by not having them in the comp? As far as i know we aren't getting any concessions from the NRL as certain interstate AFL clubs do so we're not costing the NRL any more than other clubs. We might be costing News right now but that's not the NRL so that shouldn't even come into your thinking.

I read in another thread that Telstra are giving up the major sponsorship rights after this season and won't be renewing them so obviously we need another. That being the case i'll ask you this, if you were the head of a company and were looking to sponsor a major sporting competition, would you be more inclined to spend your money and more importantly much more of it on a comp that would get your company name out there to potentially an extra 3.6 odd million people or a competition that wouldn't have a chance reach those people?

Now if you say it doesn't make any difference you're either a liar or just a deluded idiot. Like it or not (i'm tipping you don't being a Dragons fan) the fact is that having Melbourne in the comp is much more valuable to the NRL than not having them. They make more money for the NRL than what it costs them and that means much more to them than the pissy couple of thousand less that we may get through the gates than some NRL teams.

Would the NRL survive without Melbourne in it? Of course it would, they did for 90 years and i'm not saying for a second it be just plain stupid to suggest it. But i also wouldn't be that stupid to call for Melbourne to be kicked out of the comp when it makes such basic economic sense to keep them in. If you think it doesn't then i sure as sh*t hope you don't own and run your own business because you have no idea.

For the vast majority i've noticed as each year goes on that your average Sydney fan have become more accepting of Melbourne being in the comp. They might not entirely like it, but as i said they're much more accepting than they were and while many wouldn't admit it i think they know the comp is better of with them than without them. It's only the sad ignorant few that can't get over it after 10 years and move on. Again whether you like it or not we're here to stay and whether you know it or not the comp is better of for it.

For the record i don't want ANY Sydney clubs to be merged or relocated if it can be helped and i'd be honestly be spewing if they were. That's why i think we should be concentrating solely on making the current clubs we have as strong and as financially viable as we can so they survive for many yeas to come before we admit any more teams into the comp. When the comp now is as strong as it can possibly be then it'll be a natural and easier progression for new sides to come in.

 

[Big Mick]

mark123,
I have no problem with using just homebush and SFS however SFS is hard to get to by public transport.

If it were up to me I would cut the following teams:
Penrith, Cronulla and Souths.

Wests, Parramatta and Bulldogs would play out of homebush and Manly, Easts and Dragons out of SFS. But SFS won't work unless you get better public transport there.

I would also cut Melbourne and the Warriors. Add three QLD teams and have a 14 team comp with a top 5 finals system.

Incidentally of all the suburban grounds still being used Kogarah is the closest to a train station. Still a pain in the arse to get to and still third rate facilities.

right...Cut one team which is the longest in history and has the best brand going around, and cut another team that has the largest junior base in the world.

You truely are a moron....seriously...what is going on in that brain of yours.

If anyone should be kicked out it is your merger team considering your finances are crap and the Sharks simply cause they are ordinary anyway.

And another thing...why cut Melbourne and the Warriors, they are the only two teams making us a truely national/international competition. If we cut them, then we'd never get better TV deals because we are pigeon-holed into two states again, with less money, and alas more clubs falling over, the commerce is just dumb, but you obviously don't realise that.

I agree we should have less Sydney teams, but only 1-2 less...otherwise we will lose our stranglehold as a heartland.

I think people are forgetting the big picture here.

If the NRL as an administration hadn't undersold the value of our game in the last TV rights deal, we wouldn't be having this conversation, as club's would have been able to generate revenue and have more money for marketing ventures and promotions, as well as development.

But alas...the NRL arn't smart.

 

[Copa]

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

 

[Ice777]

You truely are a moron....seriously...what is going on in that brain of yours.

Reading his drivel i'm tippping not much. Not much at all. If anything at all.

 

[LeagueXIII]

10 years ago there were 11 teams in Sydney and people said there were too many, then we went down to 9 and now they are still saying it. It's a mute point, it doesn't grow anything just disenfranchises supporters.