Am i right to take it that you think 9 teams is sustainable in Sydney??
Or do you prefer a team simply be killed of?
Well you might not read all of this but you took the time to ask so I've taken the time to answer.
In this modern era and competitive business environment I think it's unwise to kill teams off in general.
When you looking at marketing surveys, all the NRL clubs have fanbases between 150,000 to 1,000,000+ which is comparable with the AFL. The key difference is that they're better at converting that into bums on seats.
So even at the lower end of support when you look at teams like Sharks, Raiders, Panthers & Sea Eagles, that's still a significant number of supporters that you risk alienating from the game. And sure you might just say, they'll convert to new teams etc and some times that does happen but anyone with any expertise with marketing will tell you that's hard with any product, not just sport. History has shown, not just in NRL but also other sports, that it's extremely hard to win back alienated customers.
For example you hear all the time about how soccer has a massive youth participation rate and how that will somehow translate into soccer's domination of the sporting landscape. The fact is it's been that way for ages. The reason why AFL & NRL -- two codes neither of which have a national domination -- still dominate their respective markets is because older supporters pass down their support to the next generation. You take away the older generations' chief reason for support (club affiliation), you kill the next wave coming through.
That's why I disagree with axing clubs. Not based on passion or affiliation for the clubs involved. It's based on sound marketing principles.
So do I think 9 teams are sustainable in Sydney? Well I've written about that previously. I think it's potentially possible but will likely some strategic decisions. My biggest concern is that we may see the gap widen between the Haves and Have Nots.
Other things to reflect upon are Sydney's geography, stadium locations & funding, socio-demographic changes and competing sport codes.
Soccer has support in Western Sydney and if they can get over the hooliganism element (they may not) the Wanderers could be one of the major Australian sporting brands. GWS on the other are hoping to carve a niche as they know that growth there may determine if the AFL is the number sports league in the country.
Western Sydney is a massive area, it's not some contiguous block. The NRL is the only major sporting league that recognizes these enclaves. This also applies to the rest of Sydney. The key principle needs to be to keep this enclave support whilst ensuring that all these NRL clubs expand their appeal Sydney wide.
The best example of this is the South Sydney Rabbitohs. For a team that was originally surrounded in the CBD/Inner City by other teams, their fanbase has spread west pretty much evenly across the city. Not only that but they're one of the country's major recognisable sporting brands even in non-heartland states. The fact that they were cut from the competition despite all this potential should indicate to you why it can be unwise to alienate fan bases for the purposes of culling itself. A team that may be struggling in one particular moment can still have massive latent support.
As for other teams, the Eels cover probably the biggest geographical area which is growing rapidly. I've heard plenty of suggestions about merging them with the Panthers. For mine it's about as logical as merging them with the Sharks given both have about the same geographical distance.
If people were to have a long term view they would know that the primary growth in Sydney will be North & West of the M7 -- in the Panthers & Eels backyards. Parramatta & Homebush are 20-30km away from Penrith. Ideally the Panthers & Eels would play out of a shared stadium but it?s unlikely to happen but if the Panthers want to tap into that population they?d look at shifting further to Rooty Hill/Blacktown way. That would put the stadium on the train line near the M4 & M7, essentially the epicentre of all that new growth. The Eels stadium redevelopment will put them in good stead and they?re likely to use it in conjunction with larger games at Homebush. Again all this is dependent on what the new stadium policy will look like. If Penrith is locked out of funding it?s going to hurt them, hence why for the overall good of the game joint funding is probably the better option.
The Bulldogs have got that kind of next biggest swathe with that triangle in the middle of the city plus they?ve been successful at growing their support outside of it. Homebush & return to Belmore is a good balance. If Homebush?s long term future declines, a joint facility with the Tigers would be a wise idea. That may have even come to fruition with the failed Oasis project.
The Roosters have got some spread but they?ve still got the problems of being essentially a suburban team. They don?t really seem to be doing much about it either. They?re a successful club with a long history that will likely continue playing out of a large central Sydney stadium with strong private financial backers but they need to do something to ensure long term support that?s on par with the bigger clubs. If the post-Super League mergers had been strategic then they would have been amalgamated with another city club. Just how every other team is going West, that?s what the Roosters need to do ? but Inner West. Yes that?s Tigers territory but things change and it?s vital for the Roosters long term support.
The St George-Illawarra merger has its pros and cons but there would be more damage by trying to undo the merger. While the St George district is a small enclave their supports have spread West. Ideally I see them treating Kogarah as a return-to-Belmore type event. Due to the geographically spread fanbase they are a team that could be sustained on a reciprocal membership basis. If they were to play the majority of their games in Wollongong it would help improve interest there. In Sydney fans could go to 1 or 2 special events at Kogarah and then get access to 6-8 big matches at Homebush & SFS.
The other merged club the Tigers have a fanbase that?s spread from Leichardt to Campbelltown and beyond. Again unmerging them would do more damage. I think the key to their future is South-West Sydney. Like the case with Penrith, there?s going to be massive growth there and Liverpool is on the train line near the M7 & M5 at the axis of old and new. The inner west will grow but ultimately it?s the South-West that they can really tap into. A shared Stadium will the Bulldogs should be looked at but they may also be able to shift some of that Leichardt support to the new central stadium. Over time though the Tigers support base will shift West, regardless of whether or not they encourage it. They could also look at a rebrand to Western Sydney Tigers in order to help cast their net wider.
The Bears ? I believe the NRL need to answer 2 questions. Will there be a Central Coast team? Will it be the Bears? The Central Coast is already bigger than what Newcastle was when the Knights started. Imagine if the Knights had never gotten that opportunity. That said Perth & South-West Brisbane are more pressing, you could even argue a second New Zealand (Wellington-Christchurch) side too. If the NRL has a plan to expand to 20 teams I believe the CC Bears should be considered. But if that?s not on the cards and there will be no Central Coast team in the next 20 years, then we need a solid plan for the region. Leaving it to the whim of individual clubs to decide the strategy isn?t working.
I can see the value of resurrecting the Bears brand elsewhere in a non Central Coast market. It wouldn?t destroy an existing franchise in the process but it will likely reignite support in North Sydney where the NRL is struggling plus elsewhere as their supporter base has spread out. For mine establishing the Bears brand in Perth, Brisbane or NZ should be considered. I?ve heard people say that Queenslanders wouldn?t support a former Sydney club. I hate to break it to them but the target market for the new Brisbane clubs ? i.e. the majority of people in Brisbane who don?t support the Broncos, either support the other Queensland teams (minority), Sydney clubs (majority) or are apathetic as they support other sports. There?s also going to be more Bears supporters in Brisbane than any other location. Ideally if a Central Coast side isn?t going to happen, then I?d like to see a Queensland Bears outfit playing out of Lang Park targeting South-West Brisbane with corporate support that?s also connected with a grassroots network like the Brothers. This idea that these new bids can only comprise one element is ridiculous.
People thinking resurrecting the Bears will hurt the Sea Eagles. Actually resurrecting support for rugby league in general is good for the game as a whole. Those people who are reinvigorated are the least likely to have converted to the Sea Eagles brand anyway. What you would have though is more people in North Sydney supporting rugby league in general and that would result in more support for the Sea Eagles overall. Instead of being ignored, people would pick a side. For mine the Manly club?s future is to cast their net wide and become the North Sydney Sea Eagles. Not a merger, just not a club that?s confined to the Northern Beaches. They need to push their support all the way to the Hills District and Harbour. That might mean dumping Brookvale for a stadium that?s centralised to their intended market. I?ve heard people suggest a permanent move to the Central Coast. I think abandoning North Sydney altogether is a mistake. However if there is no Central Coast team in the next 20 years the better strategy would be to have the Sea Eagles play 3-4 matches there as the home team. Ideally what the NRL should aim for is for the majority of sports fans between the Harbour & Wyong to be either Sea Eagles or Bears fans ? that helps cut out other sports. With just 1 option and no push from the Sea Eagles, the current trend will simply continue.
The Sharks have now got money in place but in many way they?re in a similar position to the Roosters. The Shire will grow but not as much as elsewhere and I think like the Roosters they risk being left behind. I can see both clubs being able to grow and expand and both standing on their own.
And I can also see a mutual benefit of creating a super club ? probably the wealthiest in the league ? and combining the majority of the both fan bases into a new Eastern Sydney identity. In that sense they wouldn?t have to worry about their geographical isolation as much and the new identity would be bigger and likely to spread further. I know the issues with mergers and I'm only suggesting this as a worst case option. Unlike relocation however, fans of both clubs will still be able to attend home matches in their local suburbs, not have to travel to Western Sydney ? or worse interstate ? to attend away matches. You would alienate fewer people than you would be completely relocating or axing a club altogether.
That said time will tell how well all Sydney clubs do and whether such measures are even necessary.
Not everyone?s going to like what I?ve written here but frankly I don?t care. I am not a fan of any of these clubs. My opinions are unbiased, I have the utmost respect for the game and its history. These comments are primarily driven from a marketing perspective.
