Not good enough Sharks. The Central Coast won't support 'half' a team- remember the Northern Eagles? And they shouldn't entitle you to any of the $8m. A full relocation to the central coast- changing the name to Central Coast Sharks is the only acceptable proposition. Then they could be entitled to the $8m- but they have to cut ties with the shire and have a full relocation first.
I believe that in the Sharks dire state, it is the only acceptable option. The Shire have repeatedly shown they do not want an NRL team, and are not interested in supporting an NRL team. Give the Sharks licence to a more appreciative audience, and make the CC Sharks a permanant one.
Yes, I well remember the Northern Eagles.
It was the patsy sold to the Bears that lead to their death and allowed Manly the deceitful lifeline they never deserved - but I digress from the real issue here, the Sharks.
CHB, I strongly disagree with your comments that
"The Shire have repeatedly shown they do not want an NRL team, and are not interested in supporting an NRL team" as well.
AFAIK, the junior Rugby League competition in the Sutherland Shire runs rings around the likes of Balmain's, St George and Eastern Suburbs.
The area also boasts the largest Soccer participation in the Southern hemisphere.
While I'm also a fan of soccer, should the area be deserted for the Central Coast and leave it a senior representative wasteland as far as NRL is concerned?
That would be disastrous in my opinion.
It saddens me to hear that every club faced with financial issues has the "Central Coast bound" tag attached to it.
The Central Coast, as you point out CBH, in many respects deserve a team in their own right, I just hope when the day comes, it is not Cronulla or any other current NRL franchaise.
Just on the specifics of the article, Zappia is quoted as saying his budget was for 13,000 fans per game, yet 9,000 is the current actual.
This is after 5 home games.
Based on those figures, that represents a shortfall of roughly 33%.
The article (not Zappia, although you would like to think he gave the journalist these figures) also mentions Cronulla are losing $25,000 per game at present however a move of home games to Gosford produces a minimum $100,000 guarantee per match.
I really can't be farked doing the maths here but something doesn't quite add up for my liking.
Just on the dubious position of Cronulla being "asset rich and cash poor", the question I would have for the board of the club is what steps have been taken to address this situation?
The Woolooware development has been on the table for quite a while now and given that "Directors have promoted a $110 million residential and business redevelopment adjacent to Sharkies as their saviour", why is it still a mill stone around the clubs neck when it should be the stepping stone to infinite survival?
I understand that "the plan faces opposition from conservation groups" but surely environmental impact advice has been received to give some sort of concrete surety of the developments prospects?
One last thing.
Why the f**k haven't the council got behind this?
Or have they?
It seems to me that a "$110 million residential and business redevelopment" would produce significant income for the region and council alike.
Surely the council have a vested interest to see it's region promoted around Australia every weekend in the top flight Rugby League competition?
Is it not possible for the council to underwrite the sharks in some way shape or form by way of venture capital in the project to see them through in the short term - or long term?
I recognise there would be some legal issues with that proposal however anything is achievable with the right minds on the job.
Tough times Sharkies fans but I've seen worse at Souths and we survived, eventually.
Unite and fight. ;-)
