Ideal team/city representation if comp was starting from scratch first few year

[Perth Red]

Your mistake is the use of "smaller" Sydney clubs! Pending on how they are doing and their relative strength there are no "smaller Sydney clubs" Their relevance is appropriate to their success on the fiend and other factors that you have clearly ignored. Go tell the supporters of the clubs you have branded as smaller and see what reaction you get. For instance I note an inclination to regard Manly Warringah as a small Sydney club. By whose standards and criteria? Are you aware of the external (out of Sydney following ) the Sea Eagles have? Do you count the many fans that purchase their various paraphenalia? The answer is no. But you choose to rank clubs on your own ignorant way. That's your go not others.

Nonsense, by the nature of things some clubs are big clubs and some are smaller ones. Revenue,fanbase,cooperate support, general interest all combine to dictate size of a club.

I have no problem accepting that my SL club is a middle to smaller one compared to others.
When you are averaging under 9k fans a game like Manly and dont have two pennies to rub together you aren't a big club!

 

[Stallion]

Nonsense, by the nature of things some clubs are big clubs and some are smaller ones. Revenue,fanbase,cooperate support, general interest all combine to dictate size of a club.

I have no problem accepting that my SL club is a middle to smaller one compared to others.
When you are averaging under 9k fans a game like Manly and dont have two pennies to rub together you aren't a big club!

Like I've stated it depends on what criteria is being used. I'm sure the criteria used to discard a massive club like South Sydney did not include things like longevity, cultural relevance, junior numbers, supporter numbers etc! It's relative to what is used to asses what's big or not. Obviously the Rabbitohs were seen as necessary on the farce that happened in 1997! Despite being big in many ways that apparently did not matter!?

 

[Timmah]

Like I've stated it depends on what criteria is being used. I'm sure the criteria used to discard a massive club like South Sydney did not include things like longevity, cultural relevance, junior numbers, supporter numbers etc! It's relative to what is used to asses what's big or not. Obviously the Rabbitohs were seen as necessary on the farce that happened in 1997! Despite being big in many ways that apparently did not matter!?

• South Sydney averaged between 5000 and 7000 per game each season from 1995-1998, with a bounce to 12k in the final season in 1999 not enough to save them.
• They'd been in financial strife since the 1980's and by the mid-90s were losing players hand over fist to other clubs because they couldn't afford to keep them.
• 89 Minor Premiership aside (and 1994 Tooheys Challenge if you're being generous), on-field glory eluded them for nearly 30 years before they were cut.
• They weren't even terribly strong upon readmission - it took until the Holmes a-Court / Crowe buyout in 2006 for them to be on any kind of solid footing and "a big club"

The things you speak of have certainly been more noticeable since they were readmitted than they were prior to them being cut.

 

[Stallion]

• South Sydney averaged between 5000 and 7000 per game each season from 1995-1998, with a bounce to 12k in the final season in 1999 not enough to save them.
• They'd been in financial strife since the 1980's and by the mid-90s were losing players hand over fist to other clubs because they couldn't afford to keep them.
• 89 Minor Premiership aside (and 1994 Tooheys Challenge if you're being generous), on-field glory eluded them for nearly 30 years before they were cut.
• They weren't even terribly strong upon readmission - it took until the Holmes a-Court / Crowe buyout in 2006 for them to be on any kind of solid footing and "a big club"

The things you speak of have certainly been more noticeable since they were readmitted than they were prior to them being cut.

What you inform of is correct however a very significant and important factor is being missed by people assessing a club as "small ". It's latent supporter bases. I'm aware people don't think this counts but they do as far as social relevance and , in my opinion , the estimation of a club's deemed size. Some of us keep stating that Bears are bigger than what is perceived and so are many other clubs. Think a point was confirmed in a thread that support is not just segregated to.membership numbers. Ideally yes for some but realistically not for many. We (fans)show support in many different ways. This has been lost in the "size " discourse.

 

[Timmah]

What you inform of is correct however a very significant and important factor is being missed by people assessing a club as "small ". It's latent supporter bases. I'm aware people don't think know this counts but they do as far as socI also relevance and , on my opinion , the estimation of a club's deemed size. Some of us keep stating that Bears are bigger than what is perceived and so are many other clubs. Think a point was confirmed in a thread that support is not just segregated to.membership numbers. Ideally yes for some but realistically not for many. We (fans)show support in many different ways. This has been lost in the "size " discourse.

If there are reports or studies that actually show this then it's worth discussing, otherwise it's merely speculation.

And isn't exactly on-topic regarding this hypothetical discussion of what an ideal club split would be across a 'new NRL'

 

[siv]

Lets not forget that one of the financial criteria that was used was boosted by the huge News Ltd payments to buy a club

Also sponsors and fans were walking away from the game in 1996-99. The huge positve period of 1988 to 1995 was killed when it became super greed and lots and lots of people didnt want to part if it especially during the cull process. It was a dig eat dog period and many people were bitter with the NRL admin

But dropping junior teams structure as a criteria item was on for the poor decisions at the time

But just looking at clubs that had financial issues post 2000 or went looking for handouts from the NRL highlighted missed criteria issues

Also we had Brisbane #2 We had Perth, even a team committed to the CC and one fulltime in Wollongong

SL brought a footprint in Adelaide and the peace deal Melbourne

So many lost opportunities that are only starting to be looked at 20 years later

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Your mistake is the use of "smaller" Sydney clubs! Pending on how they are doing and their relative strength there are no "smaller Sydney clubs"

There was no mistake, some Sydney clubs are bigger than others

Go tell the supporters of the clubs you have branded as smaller and see what reaction you get.

I may get an emotional response from some, but emotional reactions don't make the facts untrue.

For instance I note an inclination to regard Manly Warringah as a small Sydney club. By whose standards and criteria?

Criteria: Memberships, average attendances, TV ratings and financial assets - the big Sydney clubs have large numbers, the small Sydney clubs have smaller numbers.

Are you aware of the external (out of Sydney following ) the Sea Eagles have?

Do you count the many fans that purchase their various paraphenalia?

The answer is no. But you choose to rank clubs on your own ignorant way. That's your go not others.

The answer to the first two questions is not many. I choose to rank clubs by actual stats as stated above. Anything else is irrelevant.

Let me know if you want me to post some membership and attendance figures for you if you still think that Manly is the same size as the Eels and Souths. If you like I'll also try and dig up some info on the Roosters' large asset base if you think that they are also the same sized club as Manly.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

What you inform of is correct however a very significant and important factor is being missed by people assessing a club as "small ". It's latent supporter bases. I'm aware people don't think know this counts but they do as far as socI also relevance and , on my opinion , the estimation of a club's deemed size. Some of us keep stating that Bears are bigger than what is perceived and so are many other clubs. Think a point was confirmed in a thread that support is not just segregated to.membership numbers. Ideally yes for some but realistically not for many. We (fans)show support in many different ways. This has been lost in the "size " discourse.

Latent support is irrelevant as it does nothing for the club.

It is this apathy that led to Souths demise in the first place once the NRL criteria was released for cutting teams. Souths fans understand that now and it is why their membership numbers are amongst the best in the league. They won't make the mistake of taking their club for granted again.

If we are going to invent things though, then the Broncos have 5 billion latent fans around the world.... ok - that means nothing if the Broncos don't benefit.

 

[Perth Red]

Like I've stated it depends on what criteria is being used. I'm sure the criteria used to discard a massive club like South Sydney did not include things like longevity, cultural relevance, junior numbers, supporter numbers etc! It's relative to what is used to asses what's big or not. Obviously the Rabbitohs were seen as necessary on the farce that happened in 1997! Despite being big in many ways that apparently did not matter!?

Rabbitohs were broke. They won lotto by having a one in a billion chance of a Hollywod A lister with millionaire friends who had millions of spare $'s to invest in them. Its highly doubtful they would be around today if he hadn't or at best they would be another Manly or Cronulla.
Souths and NRL got lucky, it wasnt the size of their supporter base that has saved them. Souths are a big club supporter wise but not by other criteria and as Timmah has shown their paying supporter base wasnt great and didnt keep them sustainable.

 

[Stallion]

Rabbitohs were broke. They won lotto by having a one in a billion chance of a Hollywod A lister with millionaire friends who had millions of spare $'s to invest in them. Its highly doubtful they would be around today if he hadn't or at best they would be another Manly or Cronulla.
Souths and NRL got lucky, it wasnt the size of their supporter base that has saved them. Souths are a big club supporter wise but not by other criteria and as Timmah has shown their paying supporter base wasnt great and didnt keep them sustainable.

They are still supporters PR. No matter if they are financial or not. It's a cultural relevance thing as well. I suspect many people not tuned in with Sydney have underestimated the widespread latent fan bases of these clubs. It's there PR! It's just some of you refuse to believe this and this is why we argue onwards and onwards.

 

[Stallion]

Seriously, that's what you took from my post...

No the NSWRL wasn't "attractive for such clubs", it was a natural progression created by geographical and socioeconomic realities that was forced by technological advancement that the NSWRL happened to be the beneficiaries of because of factors totally outside of their control.

In other words through dumb luck (or bad luck depending on your point of view) the NSWRL became the biggest fish in the pond then killed almost all the other fish (whether they intended to or not), and any of the surviving fish had to either join the NSWRL or die. So they weren't attracted to the NSWRL or the NSWRL clubs they were forced to join the NSWRL for their survival cause they needed the exposure that the NSWRL had to be able to compete.

Your own city of Newcastle had one of the foundation clubs of the NSWRL, but after two years that club disbanded and the players spilt between four clubs in the newly founded Newcastle Rugby League. Now why would they do that if the NSWRL was an inherently superior league with inherently superior clubs that attract attention in a way that no others can, they'd be throwing away their golden ticket.

Honestly I don't know much about the motivations behind Newcastle joining the NSWRL but I imagine that it was very similar to Canberra, Illawarra, and Brisbane before them, they were forced to either join the NSWRL or watch local RL wither on the vine and die.

Absolutely not! If you think these external clubs were not genuinely attracted in joining the well known and highly regarded Sydney rugby league, you are delusional You have put forward all sorts of rea sons. But in the end these clubs were not forced to join the Big League. They all wanted to be part of it. So ridiculing this great competition to suit your sordid agenda doesn't impress at all. And other people can see through your destructive intent. Not just myself! Let's put it this way, we completely disagree!

 

[The Great Dane]

They are still supporters PR. No matter if they are financial or not. It's a cultural relevance thing as well. I suspect many people not tuned in with Sydney have underestimated the widespread latent fan bases of these clubs. It's there PR! It's just some of you refuse to believe this and this is why we argue onwards and onwards.

Do you seriously not understand why "fans" that don't put anything into the club aren't as valuable to the club as fans that do put their hard earned in!?

It's all well and good saying that the Sydney clubs have all these "fans" most of which don't actually watch any of their games let alone actually put any money into the club, but at the end of the day all those "fans" won't mean very much when the club is dead and gone.

 

[The Great Dane]

Absolutely not! If you think these external clubs were not genuinely attracted in joining the well known and highly regarded Sydney rugby league, you are delusional You have put forward all sorts of rea sons. But in the end these clubs were not firked to join the Big League. They all wanted to be part of it. So ridiculing this great competition to suit your sordid agenda doesn't impress at all. And other people can see through your destructive intent. Not just myself! Let's put it this way, we completely disagree!

Fine we'll use your terminology...

They were attracted to join the NSWRL, but they were attracted by necessity for their long term survival not because they necessarily wanted to play against the "well known and highly regarded Sydney" clubs.

 

[Stallion]

Do you seriously not understand why "fans" that don't put anything into the club aren't as valuable to the club as fans that do put their hard earned in!?

It's all well and good saying that the Sydney clubs have all these "fans" most of which don't actually watch any of their games let alone actually put any money into the club, but at the end of the day all those "fans" won't mean very much when the club is dead and gone.

With all due respect : You are ignorant!

 

[Stallion]

Fine we'll use your terminology...

They were attracted to join the NSWRL, but they were attracted by necessity for their long term survival not because they necessarily wanted to play against the "well known and highly regarded Sydney" clubs.

The attraction of the Big League was certainly a major factor in joining such a competition! If you cannot acknowledge this blatant and pertinent fact then we just don't agree! Simple as that!

 

[The Great Dane]

With all due respect : You are ignorant!

Ignorant of what exactly?

The long and short of it is that you are asserting that all fans are equal when they simply aren't, and latent supporters are just that, latent, and as such don't mean that much in the grand scheme of things cause they make no significant contribution to the clubs existence and in the grand scheme of things are redundant to the argument at hand cause if they were to lose their club it's no big deal cause they were never contributing to the club anyway so if we lose them we aren't really losing anything at all cause they weren't providing the sport with anything to begin with.

 

[Stallion]

Ignorant of what exactly?

The long and short of it is that you are asserting that all fans are equal when they simply aren't, and latent supporters are just that, latent, and as such don't mean that much in the grand scheme of things cause they make no significant contribution to the clubs existence and in the grand scheme of things are redundant to the argument at hand cause if they were to lose their club it's no big deal cause they were never contributing to the club anyway so if we lose them we aren't really losing anything at all cause they weren't providing the sport with anything to begin with.

These fans you dismiss are massive in the big picture. Without such fans the code loses its universal/widespread relevance. Your bean counting approach is not all encompassing. And their are plenty of fans that are not members. I have been a member and due to value I have once again joined the local NRL club as its suits my leisure times and was decently priced. I purchased a 6 match membership purely so I could see the visiting clubs that are playing the Knights (mostly on Saturdays preferably:so I.bought) Until yesterday my support was in all types of manner for my club.(Roosters) Things like buying apparel like socks, beach towels, car seat covers, number plates etc all showed my support without being a member. The support for the NRL clubs, especially in Sydney is way bigger than you estimate.

 

[T-Boon]

The support for the NRL clubs, especially in Sydney is way bigger than you estimate.

We can still relocate them.

 

[Stallion]

We can still relocate them.

Think the most effective "relocation " would be one-that gains back lost fans, gains a much needed local derby rivalry or two and capitalises on infrastructure already in place with a league's club next to the ground. Central Coast Bears! Now that's a win win relocation both strengthening a new area and reinvigorating a lost area. Looks too sensible doesn't it!?

 

[Perth Red]

They are still supporters PR. No matter if they are financial or not. It's a cultural relevance thing as well. I suspect many people not tuned in with Sydney have underestimated the widespread latent fan bases of these clubs. It's there PR! It's just some of you refuse to believe this and this is why we argue onwards and onwards.

But none of that pays the bills and this is professional sport.