Rationalisation of Sydney

[adamkungl]

While I agree with certain aspects of it, the last thing the NRL should be doing is letting Channel Nine dictate where or how it expands.
Better plan, f**k Nine off completely.

 

[MugaB]

While I agree with certain aspects of it, the last thing the NRL should be doing is letting Channel Nine dictate where or how it expands.
Better plan, f**k Nine off completely.

Agreed, no free to air tv, will get more bums on seats, and more business into the pubs, with foxtel being the main contributer to the tv deal

 

[taipan]

Nothing personal mate, your team was in the article. If that in theory happened to the Knights than absolutely they would be in trouble. However realistically the team who won 3 wooden spoons in a row and still averaged top 4 crowds will be just fine

I have zero problems with the Knights mate ,they are the safest of all NSW teams.And probably a 2nd or 3rd favourite of many.

A problem also I see some of us here and elsewhere are forgetting, we have two of the sh*ttiest non rectangular,fan hating stadiums out of 3 majors in Sydney:ANZ/SCG.Thus crowds have taken one hell of a hit.
When the new SFS and ANZ have been completed, outer suburban grounds have at least provided better facilities ie more cover, more seating ,better facilities, would we be even bringing relocation or rationalisation up?
When I see crowds of near19-20,00 at times at Penrith, packed Leichardt, packed Brookvale and Shark Park,I see many committed club and semi committed club fans, and who knows with better facilities many more may well be committed, and if relocated most potentially lost to other forms of entertainment.
Penrith with a huge junior numbers,the Sharks with a big growing one.

If any club (and fingers crossed the Sharks )cannot make a go of it financially, then relocation is probably the only option.But you will not get the bulk of their fans to follow their "offshore" club.
Simply put, rugby league is a tribal game, and if they are forced to move to a new "reservation",the tribe itself will rebel.

 

[taipan]

While I agree with certain aspects of it, the last thing the NRL should be doing is letting Channel Nine dictate where or how it expands.
Better plan, f**k Nine off completely.

Agree.And it would be like my Christmas coming early if ch10 got the FTA ,and were agreeable to NRL scheduling.And we got Voss etc as commentators.And if ch7 paid a kings ransom for SOO it would be like getting a double whammy bonus.
Ch9 couldn't promote a camel race in Dubai.

 

[adamkungl]

Also, @MugaB regarding the Roosters (obvious bias alert)

If we're talking geography...

There is only one inner-city team. Roosters.
Canterbury is definitely not the inner-city, nor are St George, Manly or Cronulla, and Souths choose not to be by playing at ANZ.
Sydney's population is split in half approximately east-west of ANZ stadium. With maybe a 4x smaller area on the East side. Meaning the population density is far higher east than west. Financially and culturally (by culturally I mean the images, events and landmarks that make Sydney "Sydney") it all leans east too. There needs to be a team in the city/east.

Roosters simply won't be on the chopping block under any possible rationale or criteria.
No business is relocating its most successful property. Moving a successful club like Roosters or Souths is crazy self-sabotage.

 

[adamkungl]

Agreed, no free to air tv, will get more bums on seats, and more business into the pubs, with foxtel being the main contributer to the tv deal

No FTA is definitely not what I am suggesting.

 

[Stallion]

While I agree with certain aspects of it, the last thing the NRL should be doing is letting Channel Nine dictate where or how it expands.
Better plan, f**k Nine off completely.

Channel ten is now cashed up? I'm sure it would rather a piece of rugby league than its current low rating sports.

 

[Stallion]

Agreed, no free to air tv, will get more bums on seats, and more business into the pubs, with foxtel being the main contributer to the tv deal

Free to air is essential. Just another channel will do. Or split the various products? SOO to Channel 9, Internationals to channel 7 & NRL to channel 10 for example.

 

[MugaB]

Also, @MugaB regarding the Roosters (obvious bias alert)

If we're talking geography...

There is only one inner-city team. Roosters.
Canterbury is definitely not the inner-city, nor are St George, Manly or Cronulla, and Souths choose not to be by playing at ANZ.
Sydney's population is split in half approximately east-west of ANZ stadium. With maybe a 4x smaller area on the East side. Meaning the population density is far higher east than west. Financially and culturally (by culturally I mean the images, events and landmarks that make Sydney "Sydney") it all leans east too. There needs to be a team in the city/east.

Roosters simply won't be on the chopping block under any possible rationale or criteria.
No business is relocating its most successful property. Moving a successful club like Roosters or Souths is crazy self-sabotage.

Mate you must not actually live in sydney, the rationale that the cluster of inner city clubs, (and yes inner city is basically east of homebush these days, not just bondi bro)
are within 15-20kms of each other. Stadium distance wise. Kogarah to Allianz is15km away.
Canterbury(belmore) to Kogarah 8km.
Kogarah to Cronulla 10km.
ANZ to Allianz 20km.
Cronulla to Allianz 25km.
All these stadiums and clubs all within 25km radius, it makes no sense.
Relocating souths and roosters and get dragons to Wollongong morso,
Means no need for Allianz rebuild, (which only serves roosters no one else)
And Cronulla, Canterbury, Parramatta and Manly have a good distance away from each other. Not a whole bunch of clubs clustered. (I hadn't even included tigers when in Leichardt yet either adding to that)

Im not saying punt souths and roosters, im saying use their rivalary to induct perth and Adelaide or brisbane 2, both can survive easily without being in sydney, whilst the rest wouldn't if relocated

To be honest roosters don't hold much of geographical footprint, and souths do, but not having both, gives the other teams surrounding these areas more pie if they aren't present in sydney. Adelaide for Roosters, Brisbane For Bunnies, perth and NZ2 or CC in future

Only issue is if the void of both teams don't pick up support, like Manly in northern Sydney, 1 million people in catchment, but they don't want to be sea eagles fans.

 

[adamkungl]

Mate you must not actually live in sydney, the rationale that the cluster of inner city clubs, (and yes inner city is basically east of homebush these days, not just bondi bro)

I've lived in both Western sydney and the inner city my entire life, and no one's calling Canterbury-Bankstown the inner city. The suburb of Canterbury might edge in on some technicality but Belmore and Bankstown not even close.
Demographically and financially the CBD and inner city is worlds apart from the suburbs.

are within 15-20kms of each other. Stadium distance wise. Kogarah to Allianz is15km away.
Canterbury(belmore) to Kogarah 8km.
Kogarah to Cronulla 10km.
ANZ to Allianz 20km.
Cronulla to Allianz 25km.
All these stadiums and clubs all within 25km radius, it makes no sense.

Which is why most of them play out of 1-2 stadiums and places like Kogarah, Wooloware, Leichhardt and Brookvale will fall further and further behind because no government will fund them enough to keep up. Belmore and Redfern already have.

Relocating souths and roosters and get dragons to Wollongong morso,
Means no need for Allianz rebuild, (which only serves roosters no one else)
And Cronulla, Canterbury, Parramatta and Manly have a good distance away from each other. Not a whole bunch of clubs clustered. (I hadn't even included tigers when in Leichardt yet either adding to that)

Im not saying punt souths and roosters, im saying use their rivalary to induct perth and Adelaide or brisbane 2, both can survive easily without being in sydney, whilst the rest wouldn't if relocated

To be honest roosters don't hold much of geographical footprint, and souths do, but not having both, gives the other teams surrounding these areas more pie if they aren't present in sydney. Adelaide for Roosters, Brisbane For Bunnies, perth and NZ2 or CC in future

Only issue is if the void of both teams don't pick up support, like Manly in northern Sydney, 1 million people in catchment, but they don't want to be sea eagles fans.

Forget trying to plonk teams equal distances apart. It doesn't reflect reality. The further west you go, the less population density, the less money, and the less national marketability.

The future of professional Rugby League will go where the money is.
The stadium upgrades are already locked in.

Roosters, Souths, Bulldogs, Parra all are happy enough playing out of modern, central stadiums and are well positioned financially. No one is going to cut them to preserve some outskirt suburban park.
Penrith has regional significance and the wealthiest megaclub in all the lands. Safe as houses.
Wests and St George have options available to them but some big decisions to make.
Manly and Cronulla sit at the bottom of the pile. They have the most to gain by relocating and are at the most risk by staying put.
The NRL will not axe or relocate anyone unless they go bust. If I was running a club that was at high risk, i'd be making a big decision before the NRL does it for me.

 

[MugaB]

I've lived in both Western sydney and the inner city my entire life, and no one's calling Canterbury-Bankstown the inner city. The suburb of Canterbury might edge in on some technicality but Belmore and Bankstown not even close.
Demographically and financially the CBD and inner city is worlds apart from the suburbs.



Which is why most of them play out of 1-2 stadiums and places like Kogarah, Wooloware, Leichhardt and Brookvale will fall further and further behind because no government will fund them enough to keep up. Belmore and Redfern already have.



Forget trying to plonk teams equal distances apart. It doesn't reflect reality. The further west you go, the less population density, the less money, and the less national marketability.

The future of professional Rugby League will go where the money is.
The stadium upgrades are already locked in.

Roosters, Souths, Bulldogs, Parra all are happy enough playing out of modern, central stadiums and are well positioned financially. No one is going to cut them to preserve some outskirt suburban park.
Penrith has regional significance and the wealthiest megaclub in all the lands. Safe as houses.
Wests and St George have options available to them but some big decisions to make.
Manly and Cronulla sit at the bottom of the pile. They have the most to gain by relocating and are at the most risk by staying put.
The NRL will not axe or relocate anyone unless they go bust. If I was running a club that was at high risk, i'd be making a big decision before the NRL does it for me.

Fine i won't use the word "inner city"
And it has the same effect, no one starting a league, would have that many teams all in 25km radius of each other, that's what im saying, i don't really care which stadiums they use whether it suburban or top flight stadiums, fact is we have too many clubs in S-E sydney, and the choices of each club to play at ANZ vs Suburban are just cost based, otherwise Belmore and Redfern oval would always be used.
NRL again would be stupid to relocate either Manly or Cronulla, fold them maybe, but relocating them makes which ever area that receives them feel as if they were recieving scraps, if the club had gone bust, especially the AFL prominent cities of SA & WA, youd have to move the successful ones, as they'll thrive there as they did in sydney.
Again "Mars Roosters" can play anywhere.
And since the roosters were never affected regarding mergers or getting culled like the other teams in sydney, maybe its time they get a bit of spotlight in the relocation talks.
I mean bears and manly =archrivals had to merge some 20+ years ago, yet when souths and easts are brought up as mergers, its all no way we need to keep that traditional rivalry. Well we can, just play in another city or 2

 

[Perth Red]

The biggest problem is not that there are too many teams in Sydney, business economics will eventually sort that out, but that expansion and growth of the game is being held back by a lack of confidence in all teams being able to thrive. The NRL should just have a growth plan (id even be radical and NOT televise the two extra games a week other than on own digital channel) for 4 new clubs over next ten years and bring them in. Stop worrying about if current clubs can survive. If the TV deal is only for 8 games a weekend and we have ten games in a 20 team comp then if 4 clubs go bust so be it, we can still deliver the TV deal. Would make it more interesting to not have every club on TV ever week.

NRL has run this year at a $42mill surplus and is still spending squillions on stuff it can cut back so the money is there to grow regardless of if TV want it.

 

[MugaB]

The biggest problem is not that there are too many teams in Sydney, business economics will eventually sort that out, but that expansion and growth of the game is being held back by a lack of confidence in all teams being able to thrive. The NRL should just have a growth plan (id even be radical and NOT televise the two extra games a week other than on own digital channel) for 4 new clubs over next ten years and bring them in. Stop worrying about if current clubs can survive. If the TV deal is only for 8 games a weekend and we have ten games in a 20 team comp then if 4 clubs go bust so be it, we can still deliver the TV deal. Would make it more interesting to not have every club on TV ever week.

NRL has run this year at a $42mill surplus and is still spending squillions on stuff it can cut back so the money is there to grow regardless of if TV want it.

Thats actually not a bad idea, like i was thinking regarding no free to air games, but if no actual coverage for 2 matches, i mean if your a newtown or norths fan, thats kinda what your getting now, but at an NRL level, not sure if foxtel would go for that, although they seem to be happy for 17 clubs, not like channel9, keen to cut up sydney to gain the dual brisbane coverage. NRL can go the Disney+ route and keep a few matches for the subscribers only

 

[Stallion]

Fine i won't use the word "inner city"
And it has the same effect, no one starting a league, would have that many teams all in 25km radius of each other, that's what im saying, i don't really care which stadiums they use whether it suburban or top flight stadiums, fact is we have too many clubs in S-E sydney, and the choices of each club to play at ANZ vs Suburban are just cost based, otherwise Belmore and Redfern oval would always be used.
NRL again would be stupid to relocate either Manly or Cronulla, fold them maybe, but relocating them makes which ever area that receives them feel as if they were recieving scraps, if the club had gone bust, especially the AFL prominent cities of SA & WA, youd have to move the successful ones, as they'll thrive there as they did in sydney.
Again "Mars Roosters" can play anywhere.
And since the roosters were never affected regarding mergers or getting culled like the other teams in sydney, maybe its time they get a bit of spotlight in the relocation talks.
I mean bears and manly =archrivals had to merge some 20+ years ago, yet when souths and easts are brought up as mergers, its all no way we need to keep that traditional rivalry. Well we can, just play in another city or 2

Your comment does not consider the massive population that occupies the Illawarra, greater Sydney and the Central Coast. The carve up talk is trash and purely aimed to weaken this great and envied competition.

 

[The Great Dane]

Your comment does not consider the massive population that occupies the Illawarra, greater Sydney and the Central Coast. The carve up talk is trash and purely aimed to weaken this great and envied competition.

The size of the population doesn't equate to the amount of demand for the product in that city, and it's pretty bloody obvious that the supply doesn't meet the demand in Sydney.

 

[The Great Dane]

The biggest problem is not that there are too many teams in Sydney, business economics will eventually sort that out, but that expansion and growth of the game is being held back by a lack of confidence in all teams being able to thrive. The NRL should just have a growth plan (id even be radical and NOT televise the two extra games a week other than on own digital channel) for 4 new clubs over next ten years and bring them in. Stop worrying about if current clubs can survive. If the TV deal is only for 8 games a weekend and we have ten games in a 20 team comp then if 4 clubs go bust so be it, we can still deliver the TV deal. Would make it more interesting to not have every club on TV ever week.

NRL has run this year at a $42mill surplus and is still spending squillions on stuff it can cut back so the money is there to grow regardless of if TV want it.

The main problem with that idea is that you don't get to choose who dies and who survives, if the dice fall the wrong way then that could seriously stunt the sport in Sydney for a long time.

The other thing is that it isn't true that the only, or arguably even the main problem, with over saturation in Sydney is that it holds back national expansion, it's that an over saturated market will always stunt the growth and sustainability of the clubs in Sydney, and thus stunt the sports potential in Sydney as well.

 

[Perth Red]

The size of the population doesn't equate to the amount of demand for the product in that city, and it's pretty bloody obvious that the supply doesn't meet the demand in Sydney.

That is an interesting debate. How do we measure what demand should be? Should it be 20k going to games? Well apart from one club no one in the NRL is there yet. Maybe 25k members is the bar? or more people watching on TV (TBH TV audiences in Sydney are pretty poor in terms of per pop watching)? Hpw do you set the bar for what the demand should be? Would be better off with 5 clubs drawing 25k or 9 clubs drawing 13k? At the moment no one is going bust so until that happensits hard to make an argument one way or the other.

 

[Perth Red]

The main problem with that idea is that you don't get to choose who dies and who survives, if the dice fall the wrong way then that could seriously stunt the sport in Sydney for a long time.

The other thing is that it isn't true that the only, or arguably even the main problem, with over saturation in Sydney is that it holds back national expansion, it's that an over saturated market will always stunt the growth and sustainability of the clubs in Sydney, and thus stunt the sports potential in Sydney as well.

NRL has been very clear since 2013 it has been reluctant to expand as it is worried about the viability if existing clubs and it wont expand from a position of weakness. Given we've had the Tigers, Dragons, Sharks and rumored Manly all in some sort of financial stress during that time I dont think its a stretch to say struggling clubs are holding back growth?

 

[The Great Dane]

That is an interesting debate. How do we measure what demand should be? Should it be 20k going to games? Well apart from one club no one in the NRL is there yet. Maybe 25k members is the bar? or more people watching on TV (TBH TV audiences in Sydney are pretty poor in terms of per pop watching)? Hpw do you set the bar for what the demand should be? Would be better off with 5 clubs drawing 25k or 9 clubs drawing 13k? At the moment no one is going bust so until that happensits hard to make an argument one way or the other.

Firstly, I wouldn't measure demand simply by measuring crowds, it's more complex then that.

Secondly, the only reason that clubs aren't going bust is because the NRL is propping them up.

Finally, hypothetically it should be possible to run a RL club in Sydney that is not only sustainable but very profitable, the fan base is there and the money is there, and there's no reason why you couldn't have multiple clubs as big as the Broncos are in Brisbane.

Once you've pushed past that point where each club in Sydney added isn't at least a profitable club and in fact is just splitting the fan base between smaller entities you're oversupplying the market, once you get to the point where you've split the fan base so much that you aren't even sure if the majority are sustainable long term you're massively oversupplying the market, that is where the NRL is at.

Take the Sharks and Dragons for example, if the Sharks never existed then the vast majority of their fans would almost certainly be Dragons fans right now, and you could more or less add their numbers together. So using your favourite metric of crowds, and admittedly simplifying things quite a bit, instead of having two clubs with averages of 16k and 12k respectively last year, you would have had one club with roughly 28k, and instead of having two weak clubs you would have had one bigger one that'd probably not only be a sustainable business but a profitable one.

Edit:

I thought of a simple way to put it: Once you aren't bringing in any new customers by expanding and are just splitting the current clubs consumer base between more clubs, that is when you are creating more supply then demand necessitates.

 

[The Great Dane]

NRL has been very clear since 2013 it has been reluctant to expand as it is worried about the viability if existing clubs and it wont expand from a position of weakness. Given we've had the Tigers, Dragons, Sharks and rumored Manly all in some sort of financial stress during that time I dont think its a stretch to say struggling clubs are holding back growth?

I never said that the over supply in Sydney wasn't holding back national growth.

All I said was that it wasn't the only problem with Sydney being over saturated, and that even if it wasn't the case that over saturation in Sydney was holding back national growth over saturation in Sydney would still be a massive issue for the sport.