Thats not the stupid part.
Claiming that the rabbits would get better sponsors or more money from sponsors if they played at SFS is.
Saying they should have to pay to play at SFS and try and say they will earn more money because of it is.
Until the SCG trust changes its ways. No club is going to going to go do a 1.5 million shift, to claim they should and then claim its "small picture" is.
Souths have found themselves in a position where they dont need the huge crowd numbers to ensure their survival, but you want them to go back to that just so keyboard warriors have less one thing to whinge about?
Yeah good luck with that.
Stupid post is stupid.
In reply to your first comment: When the Broncos get a crowd of over 25k, it pays for the $300k hire fee, they then earn $100k for every 5k on top of the 25k. Do the math, this week they will earn $300,000-$350,000.
If it costs Souths $40k to hire the venue then they don't need to sell many tickets to make a tidy profit.
Second comment: Right so Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, West Coast don't get more lucrative sponsorships because they have the highest memberships and average crowds (a measure of level of support).
The Magpies would sit down with Emirates before negotiations and say look we average 50k/game. That is 50k guaranteed 11 times per year to get ads throughout the match at the stadium on top of that look 75k membership packs with your logo all over it. It's the kind of support that companies want to align themselves with - passionate fans who fork out cash for their team.
The Sharks can't get a major sponsor one of the key reasons would be the perceived lack of supporter base and lack of coverage
BUT if the Sharks sold out Shark Park each week they would have a major sponsor and a lot more coverage (watch what 9 do with the Knights this year)...
Are you saying the perception of support through crowd average would not be another string to Souths bow (or any team for that matter) when sounding out potential sponsors?
