Perth Red
Post Whore
- Messages
- 71,256
Source?
Common sense and all the indications from the arlc and Dave smith.
Source?
The Roosters support has been entirely stagnant (with the obvious exception of GF wins and basic post-SL growth). There has been no growth in support for the roosters that happened because, or even coincided with, their name change.
Eastern Suburbs was obviously a dated name, but they could have moved to a name like East Sydney or Bondi Roosters with the same success.
The success you (all) are looking for doesnt come from a meaningless title. Its about fan engagement; making them want to be a part of your team, a team with culture that makes them worth following. Not a generic entity that will through away their whole history and entirely rebrand for every potential fan that walks past.
Edit:
When i say "meaningless title", im referring to the connotations and emotions attached to words. "Easts" (like "Manly") is an entirely average that, in the context of Rugby League, can suddenly induce powerful emotions and memories of the clubs history.
Take away that title and replace it with broader, more inclusive and less emotive brand, and you lose all of those powerful connotations (and all of the attached marketing power).
And you do all of this for arguably no gain.
This is a very interesting list and a good thing to have on hand, but there were a few minor errors pertaining to the Gold Coast clubs that I have corrected in red.
I disagree with that but there isn't really any way to prove or disprove it, so there's no point in going around in circles.
.
And a large part of that engagement is actually representing the people you claim to represent in actions and not just in word!
That's the difference between a GWS-Canberra arrangement and a proper joint representation, taking actions to represent both your areas, not flying in and out and pretending that you represent a group in the hopes of a big paycheck.
Take another example (though addmitadly not as significant as a name change) from my team the Raiders and how during the whole of the 2000's (apart from their early attempts to help people forget about SL and our periodic returns to the old armbands design) they have steadily been increasing the amount of blue and gold (or strategically placing it in areas that our culture deems as significant) on the jersey in a reaction to the increasing pride that people from the ACT take in their home town, having the jersey covered in as much lime green as possible no longer makes any sense for the clubs brand as a clubs brand revolves almost completely around the identity of the areas that it choose's to represent in the ACT and it's surrounding areas. So now the club is juggling with the representation of the team colours on the jersey as not enough lime green and they are seen as forgetting about our proud history as the Raiders and turning their back on the fans outside of the ACT, but not enough blue and gold and they are seen as not really representing the ACT (and the 'Queanbeyan Raiders' trolls come out from under their rocks again).
This is the same sort of juggling that the Sea Eagles would face if they truly did decide to try and expand into the rest of Northern Sydney, except on a reversed scale as they currently represent the minority fan base (Manly-Warringah= Southern NSW towns surrounding the ACT) and not the majority like the Raiders primarily represent in Canberra, and it's pretty simple the best way to keep your fan base healthy is to keep the majority happy as much as possible and in this case Manly would no longer be the majority.
Also the name North Shore is not some random wide sweeping name that means nothing to the Manly market and only a little more to the NS market, it has historical connections to both it's markets and can be made to provoke emotions that can be connected with RL in time.
That's not a fair comparison; you cant compare the Central Coast to Wollongong.
(note: this is all from wikipedia, im happy to be proven wrong from an ABS site or something similar)
This is absolutely correct, but the same would be true if they were bidding out of a better area.
Even given this, you are still left with all of your work ahead of you in proving the Central Coast could support a team.
Again all of the benefits that you just named could be gain whether the Bears are based on the CC or elsewhere, the valuable asset that the Bears bring to the table isn't the access to the CC but the Bears brand it's self!
I doubt that very, very much, and the way the Mariners are handling themselves on the CC supports my point of view.
Then you and I both know that the Bears would tell the NRL to go f##k themselves and scream about what an injustice it is in the media, they will never willingly give up North Sydney to anyone (least of all Manly) and if you think otherwise then you don't know what your talking about.
It's a damn shame Gosford isnt 5 hours more North to get away from Sydney, I just can't see the NRL wanting to 'expand' 1.5 hours up the road. What happened to the Bears was disgraceful considering they did the right thing and moved to ensure survival for it to only back fire with the new stadium dramas that are well documented.
The Roosters support has been entirely stagnant (with the obvious exception of GF wins and basic post-SL growth). There has been no growth in support for the roosters that happened because, or even coincided with, their name change.
Take away that title and replace it with broader, more inclusive and less emotive brand, and you lose all of those powerful connotations (and all of the attached marketing power).
I'd have to agree there, the hatred has faded significantly in recent times- Manly's no longer a dirty word like it used to be. Building on the existing Manly brand while incorporating the North Shore into the club's existing identity and naming scheme is, in my opinion, the best move to make.If the Bears are officially killed off, pretending that they never existed is probably the best course the Eagles could take.
(Its worked pretty well for the nrl on super league; just dont talk about it, people forget)
That's not really a bad thing though, unlike how it might be to those in older generations (at least in RL terms), Manly isn't a dirty word to young people on the North Shore. Manly has a lot of positive connotations for young people and, especially in the case of the south half of the Northern Beaches and the lower North Shore, there's a lot of intermingling, with the two regions bleeding into each other a lot. Lots of young people from the Northern Beaches and North Shore go to school together, go out together (with Manly itself being a key destination there) and work together. Having their RL team be called Manly-North Shore, with it being nicknamed and known generally as Manly for short, wouldn't really be an offensive proposition to them, at all. The more professional commentators, such as Sterlo, still go out of their way to call clubs by their full, proper name, e.g. he often calls the Bulldogs the 'Canterbury-Bankstown club', the Dragons 'St. George-Illawarra' etc.The problem with the Manly-North Shore Sea Eagles is that like Warringah the North Shore will be easily dropped at most opportunities.
A North Sydney Sea Eagles 20 years from now will replicate what the Roosters have done.
And if it riles up all the Central Coast Bears supporters, all the better for the game as a whole.
I'd agree with you there on both points. The Bears brand could work anywhere, but if it was based on the CC, there's no doubt they'd cause trouble and endlessly complain (at least at the beginning) if the North Shore was zoned as being Sea Eagles territory. There'd be the usual news articles (News Ltd would have a field day with all the 'controversy' they could cause), no doubt with the standard picture of old Bears supporters wearing Bears jerseys with their arms folded with a headline along the lines of 'GIVE US BACK OUR HOME... Bears fans tell Sea Eagles to give back the North Shore'. That would likely happen in some form even if the Bears were killed off for good.Again all of the benefits that you just named could be gain whether the Bears are based on the CC or elsewhere, the valuable asset that the Bears bring to the table isn't the access to the CC but the Bears brand it's self!
Then you and I both know that the Bears would tell the NRL to go f##k themselves and scream about what an injustice it is in the media, they will never willingly give up North Sydney to anyone (least of all Manly) and if you think otherwise then you don't know what your talking about.
Never work in reality? It's the CC + NS idea that would never work in reality. There's very little synergy between the CC and NS, despite the claims of those who support the Bears covering both the CC and NS. The CC is hard to get to for a large portion of the NS (especially when it comes to making evening kick off times after work), isn't an appealing place to travel to for casual/non-hardcore RL fans (e.g. you've got next-to-no chance of getting a casual RL fan in somewhere like Willoughby or Cremorne to travel up to Gosford for games, no matter what day they're on, a 20-30 minute bus trip to the Beaches though is a far easier and more appealing proposition) and leaves the North Shore with a weak, token RL presence.Any suggestion a name change or giving the North Sydney area to Manly while great in theory will never work in reality - it is as simple as that.
Commercially and geographically I think the Central Coast Bears would be successful but whether they should come in ahead of other potential franchises is debateable.
It was the same franchise with different names and owners at time - no need to separate them (similar to change of name for Eastern Suburbs/Sydney City/Sydney Roosters or Canterbury-Bankstown/Sydney a Bulldogs or different owners like with South Sydney Rabbitohs/Brisbane Broncos/Gold Coast Titans/ Manly Warringah Sea-Eagles etc
The problem with the preposition of this argument is that i would argue it has similar fallacies to the argument for the Manly name-change.
The Raiders have been around for over 30 years; in that time they have created a strong and unique brand image (the lime green). I entirely disagree with the idea that they should move AWAY from this image, in favour of a generic brand that could belong to any new team.
The Raiders currently have the choice of stayng with one of the most recognisable brands in Australian sport or entirely rebranding and changing their colours to blue and gold (remind me again, how many teams have blue and gold as their colours or just use Blue as a primary colour. Now try to think of just one other team in any code that uses lime green).
This idea to change the Eagles name has the same problem. They can keep the name they have been using for the last 60 years and promote the brand off the back of the connected history and tradition.
OR they can rebrand, just 'coz.....
It's true that the Bears brand could be set up elsewhere and that new franchise could gain a lot of value. But it may be difficult in places like Perth (with the Pirates bid) or Queensland (trying to convince queenslanders to support an ex-NSW team). As Adelaide/PNG are a long way off, it really only leaves New Zealand and the Central Coast.
I disagree with your opinion that the Central Coast can't support an NRL team and most of what anti-Central Coast Bears people say is usually just an opinion based on a preference for other locations and not really based on any firm evidence.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm not completely opposed to the idea of an NRL team on the CC but that team can't be the Bears, it's just to much of a risk that it will go sour with them pushing heavily into NS which would be disastrous.
That said the Central Coast Bears has mutual benefit to both the Coast & Bears parties and it's a logical choice for one of the next 4 NRL sides.
`It's an A-League side. Soccer is still nowhere near as popular as rugby league on the Central Coast so you're stretching trying to compare the two.
If anything the success that the CCM have had given their minority status just show how much more the Central Coast Bears could achieve given they'd be a much larger and better supported club.
Then they don't get their club. Their choice is total relocation or a meager secondary existence.
These are the types of ultimatums the NRL should be putting to all teams, both new and existing. For too long the clubs have dictated the future strategy of the game.
That's incorrect (though I can understand why you would think that), though the Giants and the Seagulls were the same franchise the Gladiators and then the Chargers were not.
When Jeff Muller came into the picture he bought out the license completely and moved the license up over the boarder from south of the Tweed to the GC so that it only represented the Gold Coast (effectively making the Gladiators the first stand alone GC team in the NSWRL/ARL/NRL ever). He removed all of the old people involved with the club and replaced them with his own effectively making it a new club and completely re-branding so that there were no recognizable traits left of the old Tweed contingency.
Then as you can imagine after the ARL revoked the license a similar amount of change was forced again to separate the Chargers from Muller's (highly disfunctional) fanchise.
Yes it was the same license but holding the same license does not make you the same club, just as the license that the Singapore Slingers once owned in the NBL was the same one that the Canberra Cannons once owned didn't make them the same club, owning the same license that the Giants/Seagulls once owned didn't make the Gladiators or the Chargers the same "franchise".
Never work in reality? It's the CC + NS idea that would never work in reality. There's very little synergy between the CC and NS, despite the claims of those who support the Bears covering both the CC and NS. The CC is hard to get to for a large portion of the NS (especially when it comes to making evening kick off times after work), isn't an appealing place to travel to for casual/non-hardcore RL fans (e.g. you've got next-to-no chance of getting a casual RL fan in somewhere like Willoughby or Cremorne to travel up to Gosford for games, no matter what day they're on, a 20-30 minute bus trip to the Beaches though is a far easier and more appealing proposition) and leaves the North Shore with a weak, token RL presence.
The Northern Beaches and the North Shore are far easier to travel between, with it being commonplace to travel to either region for work, leisure, school etc., plus North Shore teams already play with Northern Beaches teams in local RL, having the two regions together supporting the same first grade team makes far more sense than trying to make the CC + NS work.
St George Illawarra Dragons - Sydney wide & Illawarra support - through ground rationalization to grow Sydney support through select large SFS & Western Sydney marquee blockbuster games and as away support, and to better engage the Illawarra & South Coast through a gradual long term majority shift to Wollongong which also helps clear the Sydney market.
I understand the history but to separate them because of different licenses/owners/names is absurd - effectively the same team from inception in 1988 to 1998. You could even make the case the Titans are a continuation of this.
Then, outside of a small group of Bears hardcores, you'll be doing your money. It'll be effectively impossible to make kickoff on Friday/Monday games for a lot of NS fans who work. Plus, as I said, the Central Coast isn't exactly destination number one for a lot of people from the NS, people don't move freely between the two like they do with the NS and NB (the closest suburbs to the CC still have a long drive on a freeway at 110km/h to do), and the CC generally isn't viewed as an appealing place to go to. You go around and survey people from the North Shore (especially the lower North Shore) and ask how many are planning to, or would like to have a day out in Gosford/the CC this weekend vs how many are planning to go somewhere, or would like to go somewhere on the Northern Beaches/Manly this weekend. It's just not something that happens, the two areas have very little synergy, it's the Bears who are forcing something that doesn't make sense and that doesn't really happen in reality.Easier to get to Manly - yes but are they more like to go to Manly or the Central Coast...my money is on Central Coast.
They're only planning on playing one game at NSO- one game at NSO will do very little in terms of strengthening RL in the area. You've got next-to-no chance at turning casual and bandwagon NS fans into hardcore fans making regular trips to the CC, all it'll do is give the NS a weak, token RL presence, with the NSO game regarded as a once-a-year novelty.Central Coast can support their own team from within the Central Coast in terms of supporters and corporate support for the 10 home games they will play there.
Any support coming from the North Sydney area in terms of support and corporate backing, which there will be, will be a great added bonus and the 2 games they play at North Sydney Oval are sure to be sell outs.
The North Shore would also be better looked after if Manly was allowed full access to it. Suggesting that the Bears will be able to look after both regions equally well is laughable, one will end up suffering, as is the notion that putting juniors from Mosman into the same system as the CC makes for a clear pathway.Give the people of Central Coast their own team and give the old Bears fans a team and 2 games a year seems like a win/win situation for me. Not to mention the North Sydney and Central Coast districts will be better looked after and provide a clear pathway for players in those districts.
Here's your problem, you're thinking far, far too much about the old Bears fans, no they won't ever accept another team other than the Bears, but there's only so many of them, and as time goes on, there are less and less of them and more and more kids and young people who grew up not caring about the Bears, and who wouldn't really give a damn about their return. It's the kids and young people who a rezoning of the North Shore would be targeted at, and who should be targeted. As I said, young people from both regions already mix and intermingle a lot already, I work on the North Shore and nearly all the guys I work with in their 20s follow Manly in some form (most follow Manly and the Wallabies), not to mention that the two regions already play RL in the same local comp- building upon that makes far more sense than trying to make the CC + NS work.Sport is very unique and changing the name from Manly as people have suggested is absurd. It won't be accepted by the fans and it is much easier to keep an existing fan than to recruit a new one.
North Sydney will never give up its territory to Manly and nor should it. Manly screwed North Sydney over and the people of the Central Coast.
While nice in theory - Manly taking up North Sydney's territory and or changing their name will never happen. So lets move on from the nice in theory but will never work in reality waffle.
Again that's incorrect.
The license that they all owned at one point or another was the only thing that they had in common (apart from the Titans who have a different license altogether).
The Gladiators were a different club/organisation/group/consortium/company/whatever you want to call the actual business it's self, from the Giants/Seagulls and the Chargers and Titans were other separate organisations from the others too, there for it was not simply a matter of the same business just with minor changes of name or owner it was a completely new business coming in after another unrelated business had gone bust and there for they were different and should not be considered the same.
Then, outside of a small group of Bears hardcores, you'll be doing your money. It'll be effectively impossible to make kickoff on Friday/Monday games for a lot of NS fans who work. Plus, as I said, the Central Coast isn't exactly destination number one for a lot of people from the NS, people don't move freely between the two like they do with the NS and NB (the closest suburbs to the CC still have a long drive on a freeway at 110km/h to do), and the CC generally isn't viewed as an appealing place to go to. You go around and survey people from the North Shore (especially the lower North Shore) and ask how many are planning to, or would like to have a day out in Gosford/the CC this weekend vs how many are planning to go somewhere, or would like to go somewhere on the Northern Beaches/Manly this weekend. It's just not something that happens, the two areas have very little synergy, it's the Bears who are forcing something that doesn't make sense and that doesn't really happen in reality.
They're only planning on playing one game at NSO- one game at NSO will do very little in terms of strengthening RL in the area. You've got next-to-no chance at turning casual and bandwagon NS fans into hardcore fans making regular trips to the CC, all it'll do is give the NS a weak, token RL presence, with the NSO game regarded as a once-a-year novelty.
The North Shore would also be better looked after if Manly was allowed full access to it. Suggesting that the Bears will be able to look after both regions equally well is laughable, one will end up suffering, as is the notion that putting juniors from Mosman into the same system as the CC makes for a clear pathway.
Here's your problem, you're thinking far, far too much about the old Bears fans, no they won't ever accept another team other than the Bears, but there's only so many of them, and as time goes on, there are less and less of them and more and more kids and young people who grew up not caring about the Bears, and who wouldn't really give a damn about their return. It's the kids and young people who a rezoning of the North Shore would be targeted at, and who should be targeted. As I said, young people from both regions already mix and intermingle a lot already, I work on the North Shore and nearly all the guys I work with in their 20s follow Manly in some form (most follow Manly and the Wallabies), not to mention that the two regions already play RL in the same local comp- building upon that makes far more sense than trying to make the CC + NS work.
Btw, Super League screwed the Bears over, blaming Manly is what some like to do, but that's oversimplifying the situation.
That's a pretty damn big point when the Bears are supposed to represent a large portion of Sydney. If they can't get to games, then something about the bid seems very, very, very wrong.Point 1: It is going to be difficult for anyone outside of the Central Coast to get to the Central Coast on a Friday/Monday night - not really any different to a number of other grounds for most fans in Sydney on those nights.
If that's the case, then why do they want/need the North Shore? The old Bears fans will come back into the fold regardless of whether they hold the NS or not. If they don't need the North Shore to be successful, then give the area up to Manly who have far better access to it and focus on the CC, rather than trying to spread themselves ridiculously thin and relegating RL on the NS to a token presence only.Point 2: It doesn't need the fans from North Sydney to be successful, just an added bonus.
With all other games far away on the CC, or 10+ games in an extremely close area? Who knows, Manly may even have to use NSO for a while when Brookvale gets redeveloped. :shock:Point 3: Playing one game in the North Sydney Oval will be one more game in the area than they currently get. I only see that as a good thing.
It would be far, far easier for Manly as both regions are right next door to each other. They aren't separated by a long drive on a freeway, you can literally drive from the edge of the North Shore to the edge of the Northern Beaches in 30 seconds (if that). That can't be understated, major shopping centres and residential areas such as Chatswood are >=20 minutes drive from Brookvale Oval- it's far, far easier for Manly to get around the NS and do promo work, school visits, clinics etc, rather than have one team try and cover the extremely large CC as well as the NS.Point 4: The Bears could easily look after both regions - not really that difficult and St.George-Illawarra seem to manage it so please explain how it would be so hard and any easier for Manly?
They'd go into Souths U/20's at the moment, wouldn't they? And if the area were to come under the Sea Eagles, they'd go into the Sea Eagles U/20's. That doesn't address how ludicrous it would be having juniors from Mosman and the CC come under the same system.Point 5: It would provide a clear pathway as currently for North Sydney juniors the pathway past SG Ball is non existent but with the Central Coast Bears the pathway would be into the Central Coast Bears U/20's.
Not all people, mainly young people. The return of the Bears on the CC will bring those Bears supporters back to the game regardless of whether they hold the NS as part of their territory. Give the North Shore to the Sea Eagles to develop and give the Bears only the CC and you've got a far better chance of turning young, casual RL fans on the North Shore into more hardcore RL fans who will make regular trips to games etc.Point 6: If what you're saying is that most people in North Sydney already support Manly I would assume that would continue, which would be great. The return of the Bears would bring back all the other supporters who would have been lost to the game and all I see here is more fans - those that will continue to or start supporting Manly and those that will continue to or start to support the Bears.
I know all that, but blaming Manly for the fall of Norths isn't telling the whole story, Norths were broke, they were going to get cut with the post SL rationalisation, Manly was also in a bad state after they helped fight off SL, but still nowhere near as bad as Norths. Manly was always going to get a licence, Norths weren't, but the two decided to band together to see if they could make it work and to try and stem the financial damage that SL caused them. Norths still bled money, crowds on the CC decreased rapidly and weren't making the JV money, and the board fought constantly. Manly knew they could be successful again as a standalone club (as they were before) and held the licence, whereas the Norths side of it was in a bad way, continuing the unhealthy relationship could have killed off both clubs for good.Point 6: I don't know how old you are but here is a history lesson. Yes Super League started the process but Norths and Manly merged to create the Northern Eagles with a clause that if the joint venture failed that the license reverted back to Manly. The Manly side derailed the joint venture so that they could once again be Manly and kill off Norths/Central Coast.
Yes, Manly would want to and has attempted to do work in the area recently, but it has resulted in the Bears running off to the NSWRL, trying to keep Manly out.I agree that while it makes more geographical sense for Manly to service the North Sydney region (just like it would for Cronulla rather than St.George to service the Illawarra) I just don't believe it would happen anytime in the future due to the history. Would Manly even want to service the area and would they do as good a job as the Central Coast Bears - unlikely.
Of course Manly would change their name if it meant access to hundreds of thousands of new fans while maintaining their old homeland, and if they got to keep the Manly name in some form in the process.Manly will never change their name and any 'representation' of North Sydney would simply be far more 'token' than what the Bears would provide in my opinion.
I'm not only speaking as a Manly fan here, I'm speaking as someone with a lot of friends in the area and who works and spends a lot of time on the North Shore. While I admit I have some bias, I'm also echoing the views of people I know from the area, people who have grown up mostly without the Bears (I.e. they don't care about them, so their views are a good indicator of what people in the area who aren't tied to the Bears in any way think) and who think the CC Bears holding the NS is a stupid idea.You are obviously a Manly fan and I take that into consideration with your argument and see many of your points but I just don't agree with some of them, just like you may see with mine.
Neither of us are likely to change opinions but the great thing about opinions are they are like arseholes - we've all got one and they're all different. Nice debating with you.