this merger would not solve the argument about junior base and given the geographic locations of the two clubs the identity issue and what they represent would become a marketing nightmare.
Given what others have said it seems as if the juniors issue is bigger than what any standalone, relocated or merged club could address on their own. It's an NRL issue and that's who needs to deal with it. But if these clubs that are operating in combined comps were to receive an influx of juniors from a standalone Cronulla comp it could go someway in relieving at least one club's pressure.
As for geographic identity the problem with having a bunch of suburbs that sole represent small enclaves is that they will tend to remain small. The point of this exercise would be to ensure that they keep their existing heartlands but also develop city-wide and nation-wide fan bases. Of the four teams I've mentioned previously Penrith, Manly, Cronulla and Sydney (Roosters), it's clear that the Eastern/Sydney locale descriptors of that club could be adapted to cover the broadest area.
As for your other point about equality in branding, I would prefer to see the Eastern name resurrected as a nod to that club's heritage combined with the Sharks mascot. That could pay respect to both.
If a new expansion club is worthy of entering the comp they should be capable of doing so without needing to remove any teams.
We've seen from history a situation where a divide between clubs in Sydney resulted in larger clubs growing larger and smaller clubs growing slower, stagnating or declining. Ultimately in these situations those smaller clubs faced a crunch, in a variety of ways. I'm not just talking about SL, it's apparent throughout the entire history of the comp.
The issues arise out of whether or not that gap is too wide, whether or not it is growing wider and whether or not the balance is sustainable.
The counter to the Sydney issue is obviously expansion. There are likely more areas that currently warrant or will soon warrant clubs that could push the league beyond 18, 20, 22 and 24 teams. You've suggested that claiming there's a hard limit on the maximum number of teams is arbitrary and that's true to some extent but there are also realistic bounds of limitations - again sustainability - that apply to both new and old markets.
The main question is: should the clubs be expanding with anywhere from 2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-whatever new teams if 20 years from now there's still going to be the same problems in Sydney?
I find those supposed supporters numbers very dubious.
I think moreso the NRL to date have been rather shithouse at converting fans into members and getting them to attend matches but that's another issue.
But even if you're skeptical of the total numbers themselves, given that its the same set of questions asked to the polling group, even if the overall volumes were smaller the rankings of the clubs against one another would likely remain the same.
I think that if you asked every member of a club if the worst was to happen whether they would prefer see their team relocate or merge you would get a very mixed response.
I think you would get a good percentage saying they would rather see the club die then relocate or merge, a good percentage saying they would prefer see a merger with another club so they stay in their area most of the time and another good percentage saying that they would prefer see the club relocate and stay a standalone club.
Agreed.
Reality is you need two clubs to merge, both clubs would need to be in situations where their existence as stand alone entities was looking bleak and both would need to accept the conditions of that merger.
I always find it interesting that in rugby league it seems that long term strategic planning is only done in times of dire emergency. I've even said previously that I hate to see anything happen to the Sharks during or as a result of their current saga. I'd rather see the clubs see the logistical and commercial sense of the argument than have them do it at gunpoint.
When you ask why a struggling club should be left alone a common answer you hear back is "we've got money" but again it seems like the money they've had thus far hasn't done much to rectify the situation...
There are though clubs that have genuinely struggled for cash and that's always going to cause sustainability problems. You can't plan for the future if you're wondering where your next meal's coming from. And no doubt it's also been a lack of direction from the previous NRL administration.
For mine, I'd have no problem waiting to see what this new influx of money and this new administration can do to help fix this problem. But if 5-7 years from now, the same clubs are suffering with the same bullshit, then it should be on the table for serious discussion.
