NRL club merger's

[adamkungl]

Well, the worst Sydney clubs pull Canberra/GC level crowds. I would say Canberra and GC obviously have too many teams :crazy:

Also, too few fans for what? Please elaborate on this mythical arbitrary benchmark that doesn't appear to have anything to do with a club's survival and is completely different for non-Sydney teams.

 

[KiamaSaint]

Well, the worst Sydney clubs pull Canberra/GC level crowds. I would say Canberra and GC obviously have too many teams :crazy:

Also, too few fans for what? Please elaborate on this mythical arbitrary benchmark that doesn't appear to have anything to do with a club's survival and is completely different for non-Sydney teams.

If we are going to call it the NRL (question over that name with the Warriors in it), then Sydney does clearly have too many teams.

 

[docbrown]

I can guess

Which club had the most piss poor performances in 2007, 2009 and 2011...

Well the finishing results were 10th, 11th and 16th. For the years they came 10th & 11th to have so many sub 10k game is kind of ordinary. They can't all have been weather affected.

Daily. And this goes for all clubs I might add as they'd all do similar things. But in regards to the Eels the players can only train for a certain amount of hours every day so they send them to schools etc, do a lot of work with Westmead Children's Hospital.

They could do it during the off-season and when they're not in Sydney though.

But I will concede obviously not as much as they do now. As to how much that will affect the community, I don't know if you could honestly say that it would cause a 100% collapse of community support...

How in god's name can a club represent a beach suburb in southern sydney and the northern island of new zealand.

How can a club represent inner Sydney and western suburbs?

How can a club represent St George and Illawarra?

They all have very different demographics.

put $5 million on the table for any team(s) that are willing to merge or relocate ... add $500,000 to a million a year until somebody takes up the option

Well for what I'm suggesting re Roosters & Sharks, the NRL would have to offer them about $20,000,000 each, just roughly.

The challenge for the ARLC is how to help clubs lift that avg 15k fans base to 20k and beyond so bad seasons see 17-20k and good seasons see 25k+.

I agree with those sentiments hence it's not just about increasing the average but it's all about cutting off the bottom end of the bell curve and removing those sub 10k games and even sub 12k games.

I disagree with anyone who thinks that those are acceptable except in the most adverse weather conditions.

Both the original fans, and the fans in the new city will not accept partial relocation. 10 games new venue, 2 at old may be fine, but a 10/7 split will not work

I don't understand your logic here.

It'd still be 10 games in either scenario at the new venue.

At the old venue, why would those original fans support only 2 games and not 7?

I disagree with people who suggest that an area like Sutherland after a total relocation will suddenly start travelling to other areas in Sydney to see games when they don't know. And I also I don't believe that they will suddenly become Dragons supporters. I'd suggest they'd just become disinterested with league in general.

However with 7 games you'd have a similar effect that Illawarra gets. It's a still a significant enough presence.

the ol' chestnut thread ... doc is really trying to come up with a way to fix the fact that

there are too many clubs in Sydney, drawing low crowds and the game cannot sustain them all ... who'd have thought :shock:

he is trying to fix it by adjusting the draw, adding games, being as gentle as possible, giving them another supporter base and making the entire proposal as pretty as possible

kudos to doc for trying

if it were up to me, I'd just lower the grant from the NRL and let them die one by one until we got down to 4 or 5

Oink !

I don't want to see teams die off entirely though and I don't want to see full relocations.

But the Sydney issue likely needs to be addressed at some point either through merger or a partial relocation as I've suggested.


I think if I had simply said SYDNEY TEAM X and SYDNEY TEAM Y to partially relocate then I might not have gotten such a negative response because even people who say "I don't want my club to relocate" at other times have likely said "But this other Sydney team should relocate."

 

[Mr Pmatta]

Doc I dont have a massive problem with you idea, but please dont sell it like the current supporters of these clubs would not be losing anything. I am a Wests Tigers fan and I know what the process of my side merging felt like. I could only imgine how I would feel if my side had of moved to a different country. Yes they would still play many games in Sydney, but would they really be my team anymore or would they be another countries team that I get to borrow to every second weekend.

This plan has larger implications than just taking away 2 games from them, you are taking their team and moving them to another country, of course that will upset people.

Wests TIGERS was not a merge it was a takeover, same goes for ST GEORGE Illawara!!

 

[adamkungl]

If we are going to call it the NRL (question over that name with the Warriors in it), then Sydney does clearly have too many teams.

I forgot Sydney isn't part of the nation, doh.

 

[dogslife]

Western St Balmain-Illawarra Steeldragon-Tigpies. They won't be beaten

 

[TheDalek079]

the originals will feel disenfranchised as they'll view it as their team is being taken away from them

the new area wants a team. they do not want a washed up sydney team playing a few games there to survive so they'll won't support it. They want to see that the team is committed to the area, and playing half their games at the old home ground does not achieve this.

 

[Eels Dude]

Maybe I'm slow and missing something, but if season ticket holders are buying up all the seats what is the problem? I can understand that casual fans wouldn't be able to get into the game, but a casual fan wouldn't be able to get into any game if all of the seats had been bought up by any means.

If season ticket holders are buying tickets that they don't use, it does look bad but that is really their right to waste their money like that. If all the seats are being sold, then it sounds like the ground is already reaching capacity, but I was under the impression that is not the case for a lot of teams.

What am I missing?

I agree and that's exactly my point. That needs to be taken into account when considering crowd averages.

 

[Eels Dude]

They could do it during the off-season and when they're not in Sydney though.

But I will concede obviously not as much as they do now. As to how much that will affect the community, I don't know if you could honestly say that it would cause a 100% collapse of community support...

Doing it during the season is important as it's promotional to get people behind their team and attend games, encourage kids to play footy etc.

100% collapse, not at first, but over time it would. There's a reason why the Northern Eagles failed, there's your precedent.

 

[Eels Dude]

How can a club represent inner Sydney and western suburbs?

How can a club represent St George and Illawarra?

They all have very different demographics.

Probably the worst argument you could make. Prior to Illawarra being admitted into the comp in 1983, Wollongong and the surrounding areas was considered Dragons territory and they sourced most of their juniors from the area and still do. Out of all the mergers, this one made the most sense.

 

[unforgiven]

Wests TIGERS was not a merge it was a takeover, same goes for ST GEORGE Illawara!!

The Wests Tigers was a joint venture and not a take over. Both Wests Magpies and Balmain Tigers both have a 50% representation at board level.

 

[Canard]

Would anyone expect realistically Wellington to get crowds bigger than 10K average (longterm)?

 

[Perth Red]

If they can't then they shouldn;t be brought in. For me 15k avg should be the min that is acceptable at this point in time. I would be very disappointed and worried if the WA Reds can't draw an avg of 15k each season regardless of form.

Maybe clubs do not have the money to market themselves at the moment and the NRL marketing of games is a joke so I don;t suppose that helps. Maybe with more at our disposal we may get a decent marketing budget that will ramp up the interest in the game and have a knock on effect on crowd numbers?

for me the reason for reducing Sydney teams is far more about corporate support than it is game attendance. Merging two clubs might add 2-3k on the avg of one of those clubs eventually but overall we lose total number attendances (unless we bring in new teams that can avg higher than the merged clubs did individually).

 

[drago brelli]

Probably the worst argument you could make. Prior to Illawarra being admitted into the comp in 1983, Wollongong and the surrounding areas was considered Dragons territory and they sourced most of their juniors from the area and still do. Out of all the mergers, this one made the most sense.

Illawarra joined in 1982. To say that the Illawarra was considered Dragons territory may be convienent for the old St.George supporters but just as many travelled up the Princess Hwy to Cronulla and quite a few went to Balmain.

 

[adamkungl]

I find it very hard to believe there is not enough corporate support for 9 teams in the largest city in Australia, with every team in it's own very distinct district.

Teams struggle for sponsorship when they are shit on and off the field, not because of a lack of suitable businesses.

 

[docbrown]

Doing it during the season is important as it's promotional to get people behind their team and attend games, encourage kids to play footy etc.

100% collapse, not at first, but over time it would. There's a reason why the Northern Eagles failed, there's your precedent.

I don't know if I'd agree with using Northern Eagles as that precedent. In the first year the Central Coast actually had a higher attendance than Brookvale but then it swapped over. I think the thing fell apart due to conflicting ideas and rivalries.

This isn't a case of merging two clubs remember.

Probably the worst argument you could make. Prior to Illawarra being admitted into the comp in 1983, Wollongong and the surrounding areas was considered Dragons territory and they sourced most of their juniors from the area and still do. Out of all the mergers, this one made the most sense.

Ok granted, but was the area still Dragons territory after the Steeler's came in? That's a good 19 years difference there.

Would anyone expect realistically Wellington to get crowds bigger than 10K average (longterm)?

For 10 games a season, I'd say they could draw 15 to 16k if the NRL puts money into marketing them.

If they can't then they shouldn;t be brought in. For me 15k avg should be the min that is acceptable at this point in time. I would be very disappointed and worried if the WA Reds can't draw an avg of 15k each season regardless of form.

Maybe clubs do not have the money to market themselves at the moment and the NRL marketing of games is a joke so I don;t suppose that helps. Maybe with more at our disposal we may get a decent marketing budget that will ramp up the interest in the game and have a knock on effect on crowd numbers?

for me the reason for reducing Sydney teams is far more about corporate support than it is game attendance. Merging two clubs might add 2-3k on the avg of one of those clubs eventually but overall we lose total number attendances (unless we bring in new teams that can avg higher than the merged clubs did individually).

I agree with your comment but in this case though of a partial relocation you're actually getting 10 extra games a season - so say for a 16k average - 160,000 - or obviously the equivalent of an extra round.

You won't get that under a full relocation or merger.

 

[Eels Dude]

I don't know if I'd agree with using Northern Eagles as that precedent. In the first year the Central Coast actually had a higher attendance than Brookvale but then it swapped over. I think the thing fell apart due to conflicting ideas and rivalries.

This isn't a case of merging two clubs remember.

Well true. But the whole point of Norths relocating was to give themselves an identity with that region, but they'd still be able to maintain a relationship with their fanbase as it was only 40 minutes drive away, enabling them to do on a daily basis what I suggested. The North Shore is now lost to RU because there is no rugby league presence there any more.

Ok granted, but was the area still Dragons territory after the Steeler's came in? That's a good 19 years difference there.

Obviously not. But in regards to the Steelers they weren't able to be financially viable on their own otherwise they've have just folded completely. This wasn't a merger when you look at it, think of it like a married couple splitting up, but then getting back together a few years later. Illawarra and the Wollongong region get to keep their identity in the NRL, still get 6 games a year, and they're never going to go broke. Completely different situation to the Tigers, which is in turn a completely different situation to the Eagles.

 

[docbrown]

Well true. But the whole point of Norths relocating was to give themselves an identity with that region, but they'd still be able to maintain a relationship with their fanbase as it was only 40 minutes drive away, enabling them to do on a daily basis what I suggested. The North Shore is now lost to RU because there is no rugby league presence there any more.

The problem though it wasn't just the Bears - it was a part Manly side whose chief interest was Manly. Of course for any team that were to do a part relocation they've got to get in there and do the ground work - the manly part of the operation didn't seem to keen on that. I'd say if it was just the Bears moving by themselves it would have worked.

As you've said about lost territory - it's important not to repeat that mistake again in Sutherland shire - hence why I'm trying to promote an alternative to a full relocation (if it comes to that). Obviously though there's a problem on the North Shore and bringing back the Bears can fix that but usual cry is "too many Sydney teams". By partially relocating the Sharks the Sydney games are reduced but the Sharks can use South Island for a boost to their economic and membership base rather than just trying to compete in the Sydney marketplace.

Obviously not. But in regards to the Steelers they weren't able to be financially viable on their own otherwise they've have just folded completely. This wasn't a merger when you look at it, think of it like a married couple splitting up, but then getting back together a few years later. Illawarra and the Wollongong region get to keep their identity in the NRL, still get 6 games a year, and they're never going to go broke. Completely different situation to the Tigers, which is in turn a completely different situation to the Eagles.

Well okay but the precedent though is there with the Wests Tigers. Because there was no acrimony between the two sides, people in the West of Sydney are becoming Tigers supporters. If they weren't playing games at Campbelltown though I doubt that would be the case... so....

What you've said about Illawarra and the Wollongong region kind of applies to a partial relocation with the Sharks - they still get to keep their identity in the NRL, still get 7 games a year and have greater financial security.

If it works at Campbelltown and Wollongong, why not Cronulla?

 

[Eels Dude]

The problem though it wasn't just the Bears - it was a part Manly side whose chief interest was Manly. Of course for any team that were to do a part relocation they've got to get in there and do the ground work - the manly part of the operation didn't seem to keen on that. I'd say if it was just the Bears moving by themselves it would have worked.

As you've said about lost territory - it's important not to repeat that mistake again in Sutherland shire - hence why I'm trying to promote an alternative to a full relocation (if it comes to that). Obviously though there's a problem on the North Shore and bringing back the Bears can fix that but usual cry is "too many Sydney teams". By partially relocating the Sharks the Sydney games are reduced but the Sharks can use South Island for a boost to their economic and membership base rather than just trying to compete in the Sydney marketplace.


Well okay but the precedent though is there with the Wests Tigers. Because there was no acrimony between the two sides, people in the West of Sydney are becoming Tigers supporters. If they weren't playing games at Campbelltown though I doubt that would be the case... so....

What you've said about Illawarra and the Wollongong region kind of applies to a partial relocation with the Sharks - they still get to keep their identity in the NRL, still get 7 games a year and have greater financial security.

If it works at Campbelltown and Wollongong, why not Cronulla?

Yeah well my posts in this thread are more to with your suggestions of relocating the Roosters as opposed to the Sharks. If there was any club in Sydney who should/ could relocate it's definitely the Sharks. That's not to suggest it should happen though. They kind of sit in the middle of Dragons/ Steelers territory we've previously discussed and eaten into that territory. But regardless, they are there now and they've developed a supporter base. Cronulla and the Sutherland shire are a funny part of Sydney that a lot of people who grow up and live there just don't venture outside the area unless they have to.

But it's a big commitment you're asking clubs and the NRL to do just by suggesting they relocate to an risky new market. Not to mention the players. And then you have to ask will the new region accept a partially relocated team. Something the Central Coast did in a way. Norths were going to relocate there full time, then after the forced merger they became a half Sydney, half CC team and all of a sudden there was a lack of enthusiasm.

 

[Loudstrat]

I dont ever rememner Wollongong being classed as "Dragons teritory". In 1967 the NSWRFL imposed their southern boundary at the Georges River - for the next 15 years it was nearer to Cronulla.

I think people think of the Dragons link because Langands was a Wollongong boy - there were obviously others I cannot recall that headed north to Kpgarah in the glory years - up to Slippery Morris. But Bob Fulton went to Manly, John Dorahy to Wests, Mick Cronin to Parra and Blocker Roach to Balmain. The claim that the Illawarra was a defacto Dragons junior nursery is a historical lie.0

Anyway, what is all this crap about punting Sydney clubs? It will solve nothing apart from giving other codes pockets of unrepresented areas to sink roots - such as the North Shore. Brisbane and Newcastle at their best aside, there is no club that gets better crowds than the better supported Sydney clubs.

Also, the thought that the Roosters are the poor crowd drawers is disproven whenever they look like are finals bound. There are no "failed" Sydney clubs. There is no need for mergers - none apart from the unlikely Penrith/Sharks merger would ever happen anyway.