I'm wondering if this could also be a long-game from the NRL to try and force a couple of clubs to relocate.
They know that there are too many teams in Sydney and they know that Moore Park and Parramatta can't be sustainable for a club like the Sharks or Sea Eagles, but are really pushing it as their preferred stadium model.
They won't let clubs play out of suburban ovals forever if the bulk of teams are playing in modern all-seaters.
I'm probably wrong, but the fact that they're seemingly in favour of the government pulling funding from suburban venues makes me wonder.
I know you don't mean it but it ends up being a conspiracy theory. There are multiple separate issues through which the NRL are navigating. They are somewhat linked, sure, but they don't fit neatly together in any related fashion.
Its not so much as leaving clubs behind, I would say, as its to propel them forward -- and unrelated, but standing next to that thought, it may be that some clubs (not at the NRLs wishes) fall by the wayside in many years. Its not the order switched around.
When you think of AFL for example - do you think of North Melbourne?
Anyway, that leads into the next guy I will quote
This.
Except I would make the 20k stadiums at least 25k.
will come.
The money is not there for 5-10 individual awesome stadiums. Thats the reality.
You can't possibly tell me that people in sydney want to goto something like St helens new ground, langtree park? Thats a 20k stadium, and its not very big, or very good by world-stadium standards. The manly 25k looks good enough but its a victory of design and art, and still a bit too small. I could see them possibly building it with private money, but its very limited in terms of its really only serving that area; which could be a good thing, but its also very much just for them.
And just look at what they need to do to make that one proposal work. Build high buildings, get things approved by council, laws altered by council, rezoned, and a myriad of other things.
These stadiums take a lot of effort in the planning stage and cost a LOT of money, no matter if they are 25k.
Imagine 20k's sprouting up all over the place. Not only have you spent a shed ton of money, but you've limited your facilities, and revenue generation to 20k, and growth, blah blah.....its shooting yourself in the foot. In the meantime you've wasted 100s of millions of public money at a time when the major stadium in sydney need a good splash of paint.
Just because though the govt is putting money into stadia, does not mean other methods of revenue raising for stadia won't happen. I see Manly as a good thing. I see potentially Penrith as a good thing. Maybe cronulla (similar to manly's own funding model)
But then you must ask yourself, with other clubs being city wide clubs in future (retaining much of their identity) where to for small clubs like manly and cronulla? They are struggling as is. Thats why I asked the other guy if he thinks about the little, tiny, North Melbourne in the AFL when he thinks of AFL?
They need Icons for stadia, and they need big, city wide teams
Left behind? Or being stubborn and refusing to take the walk down progress lane? Conspiracy or natural forces? The NRL would be sitting back watching all this, and doing what they can to help the NRL -- not doing what they can to trash clubs. And at the moment doing what they can to help the NRL, is clearly the larger stadia. You need a spine of facilities in the city. Ones so good, they can potentially service most teams/needs.
There's no reason why in the future all these clubs could not just label themselves Sydney and be done with it.
Every sport bar AFL (who's Melbourne clubs are inner city ones anyway) has city names for teams. Except the NRL clubs. And one of their inner city clubs already calls itself sydney, the roosters. New York Giants/Jets.
Start calling themselves Sydney Roosters, Sydney sharks, South sydney, West(s) Sydney, and be done with it. Penrith would remain, Manly would remain as its an identifiable spicky little peninsular.
(This is just an example of how you can propel growth and jump the fence of your little suburbs -- if that happened 20-50 years ago then maybe we would be sitting here now talking about large individual stadia - but we are not. You got to start somewhere, name change, ideology change; changing where you play your games)
So this is not a conspiracy theory -- this is a case of the govts, the stadia (scg trust ect) and the NRL, and the other codes, a case of all their goals in this area aligning.
And why is being a city wide club a better thing? Well for any brand in a certain area there will only ever be a certain (that percentage varies) amount of people who will relate to that brand - you
best those sporting brands as wide as you can. The widest spread are football clubs like Man U and Real Madrid worth 3 and 4 billion dollars overall respectively. Reals' revenue alone could fund the ENTIRE NRL for the year and then some, maybe 2 years. Once one club goes city-wide, big stadium, the others must try and follow. There's no lower league in the NRL to drop down to and lick wounds.
Give us another 60 page essay smurf guts.
*************
It could be that I'm a lot smarter than you, but I think I am just far more informed. If it takes 60 pages then that is the measure of how much misinformation, lies, and self defeating attitudes are present on here. Why come here to spill lies and fairy tales to one another from positions of ignorance?
The needle on the irony meter just got buried.
*************
Does that mean all London premier league clubs will be moving from their home grounds and into Wembley and the refurbished Olympic Stadium?.....
This is a lot of non sequitur's. They are far from community clubs. They maintain that veneer, yes, because they have the recipe right. Go read any report about these clubs - they read like financial statements with all the lingo and trappings of an economists approach. When Man U was taken over, the chairman revealed they had tried the commercial angle of spreading, and was worried. It sounded like 95% of his time was about making money. Like I said, they got the recipe right.
In regards to the teams, there is no erroneous logic in the person you quoted at all. Its simply non nonsensical to put a club like arsenal down in asia. He was talking about something way different.
What he was talking about is the fact that IF cronulla fans won't travel 25 mins, then whats the point.< - As an example.
So what is the point? Im damn sure that Arsenal fans WILL travel to the north of england to watch their side play.
They are dedicated. Cronulla is not. In fact, if they were able to purchase more away tickets they would.
I recently spoke about opportunity cost How long before you get people capable in finance at a club standing round and discussing things before they bring up "opportunity cost"? 10 minutes? 6 months? 1 year?
How long before you get capable people in the NRL talking about this?
How many years does it take an old-world, old-school organisation to talk about this like the former admin pre-2000? And I dont mean 'talk' about it, I mean discuss it seriously and rationally.
Making city wide clubs and having bigger teams playing out of less stadia is NOT homogenising them to the point of destruction. Fallacy.
The other - is simply your preference.
Its called getting the recipe right. Sydney is not London. And neither are the finances available to Sydney. The EPL saw steady improvements over 100 years to stadia. Sydney has done nothing. You can't have 'that', when what you have is 'this'. The money is not there. But dont worry, the fewer stadia fallacy you commited is a lie you're telling yourself.
Simply put, none of the concerns you have will happen in isolation. Other things are happening. Its like in some peoples minds they move to the SFS >but!< talk about things as if they were down at Brookvale. Thats just not the case. Other things happen around this. A changed situation in life.
___
Do you think that sydney soccer teams are getting up in arms about this stadium thing? lol. Or Rugby Union? Why league? You're hampered with erroneous thinking.
