Quicksilver
Bench
- Messages
- 4,355
Good idea.
That pushes into Souths territory too
That pushes into Souths territory too
On the same line of thought as the Sea Eagles adopting the name “North Sydney” or “North Sydney - Central Coast” to expand their local catchment, I can’t say I’ve ever heard the name “Botany Bay” mentioned in an NRL context. I’m wondering if something like “Cronulla - Botany Bay” would subtlety expand the club’s appeal northwards, beyond the Shire, perhaps putting pressure on Saints in the long term to more completely move out to Wollongong?
Yes, yes, “stadium” thread, I know. I was just thinking about this in the context of where do you build the southern Sydney, BankWest-style stadium?
Leigh
Brisbane ANZ and Melbourne Olympic weren’t really Rugby League stadiums. They were athletics fields. They weren’t rectangular and the experience was not great. I don’t think anyone has ever claimed they were any good- Especially Brisbane.
I mean Brisbane ANZ was a poor man’s Sydney ANZ.
Souths were playing out of a superior RL stadium before moving to ANZ- those attendance figures are likely due to other factors. Such as them not being shit anymore and the movement of their supporter base to the west.
IF it were to happen, it sounds a lot better just to drop the cronulla, Botany Bay SharksOn the same line of thought as the Sea Eagles adopting the name “North Sydney” or “North Sydney - Central Coast” to expand their local catchment, I can’t say I’ve ever heard the name “Botany Bay” mentioned in an NRL context. I’m wondering if something like “Cronulla - Botany Bay” would subtlety expand the club’s appeal northwards, beyond the Shire, perhaps putting pressure on Saints in the long term to more completely move out to Wollongong?
Yes, yes, “stadium” thread, I know. I was just thinking about this in the context of where do you build the southern Sydney, BankWest-style stadium?
Leigh
The point stands. Moving from an outdated ground with shit facilities to a modern, comfortable facility improves crowds.
In the case of Souths, the increased crowds correlate with the move to ANZ, their success came later on so I'm not sure what other factors you are referring to.
Can I just ask, are you suggesting that modern, state-of-the-art, comfortable facilities don't help crowd numbers?
Ok. So to continue with the Perth examples. Fremantle averaged 32k at Subiaco (capacity 38k) which was very outdated. That increased to 41k when they moved to the ‘best stadium in Australia’ which is also in a better location. About 35% up. So would they be better off in a 45k stadium that cost $250m less to build?But they dont get 30k at Optus, because it has bigger capacity both clubs are avg 50k! Having more capacity allows you to sell more seats to more people and earn more money! An 18k stadium is going to avg 15k seat sales, a 30k stadium (if the club is run well) is going to allow you to sell a lot more. Its basic economics lol.
If Manly cant get just 20k people to games in a catchment of 1/2million for their regions main popular sport then they arent running their business well and probably shouldnt be taking up an NRL license (or any other club for that matter). We arent talking about them achieving WC Eagles level of fan engagement here, we are talking about increasing avg crowds by around 5k to 6k people!
I’m surprised Souths didn’t slowly move to a Sydney Rabbitohs moniker. Everyone would still call them Souths.
That is an ugly name though. Also doesn't roll off the tongue very easily.
Ok. So to continue with the Perth examples. Fremantle averaged 32k at Subiaco (capacity 38k) which was very outdated. That increased to 41k when they moved to the ‘best stadium in Australia’ which is also in a better location. About 35% up. So would they be better off in a 45k stadium that cost $250m less to build?
Of course they would.
- atmosphere would be better
- more chance of it being built in the first place
- lower running costs, so more profitable
- more sell outs means they can charge more for seats, so even more profitable
With SFS at 45k, ANZ 84k and Parra 30k, there is simply no need for another 30k stadium.
Perhaps Parramatta could have been 25k and served its purpose just as well, with $50m going towards other stadiums.
What you need to remember is that the ANZ money is no longer there. PVL needs to shoot for something that is achievable, and that will be successful.
I’m surprised Souths didn’t slowly move to a Sydney Rabbitohs moniker. Everyone would still call them Souths.
Their existing name still encompasses a vast area, though. You could argue everything south of the harbour down to Wollongong is South Sydney lol. Don’t know why back in the day, Easts didn’t call themselves East Sydney. Wouldn’t have stopped our boarders being moved but at least Souths fans living in Maroubra and Randwick for example we’re in fact living in East Sydney.
Some new renders that have been updated with some changes to the DA.
Don't think they've been posted here.
Enjoy!
https://www.infrastructure.nsw.gov.au/media/2588/design-scheme-update-and-stadium-cross-section.pdf
I disagree, as do most of the world’s great sporting clubs and competitions. Does Manchester U, Liverpool, or any EPL or NBA or NFL teams build stadiums with spare capacity? No, because it is not economical. Chicago Bulls play in an 20k arena! Surely the world’s most famous Bball team in a city of 10m could sell out five to ten times that. Why? Because full stadiums that are the correct size give a better fan experience and are more profitable. They also look better on TV where most of the revenue comes from. Consider Perth and Adelaide for local examples.no they wouldn’t because they want to grow their business and the only way to do that is to have the seating capacity to do so. Also to get a 41k avg they would have some games near 50k and some closer to 30k depending on the different factors. Smaller capacity equals smaller avg and no room to grow, never a great business model!
if eels didn’t have the capacity they wouldn’t be able to offer free kids memberships for starters.
I disagree, as do most of the world’s great sporting clubs and competitions. Does Manchester U, Liverpool, or any EPL or NBA or NFL teams build stadiums with spare capacity? No, because it is not economical. Chicago Bulls play in an 20k arena! Surely the world’s most famous Bball team in a city of 10m could sell out five to ten times that. Why? Because full stadiums that are the correct size give a better fan experience and are more profitable. They also look better on TV where most of the revenue comes from. Consider Perth and Adelaide for local examples.
Half empty stadiums have a negative affect on crowds due to the lack of atmosphere. ANZ ring a bell? They are more expensive to build, maintain and operate. Shooting for more 30k stadiums reduces the chances of any being actually built.
The easiest way to increase demand is to reduce supply, and full, high standard 15k - 18k stadiums are better than bigger empty ones.
The evidence suggests that most Sydney RL fans don’t travel, so instead of following the AFL, and building mega stadiums, the EPL is the best model. With the right size stadium, each game in club heartland could be sold out each week.
Clubs can still have room to grow with 15 - 18k modern stadium. If they sell out every week, they can use the profits to better promote themselves and take one or two big games to SFS, Parra or ANZ.