Sydney Crowds

[Billythekid]

What a load of garbage. Brisbane, GC and Melbourne have a lot of NSW expats who attend their team?s games. Canberra, Newcastle and Wollongong are all within driving distance of Sydney and get decent away support as well. The Cowboys and to a lesser extent the Warriors are the ones who barely get any away supporters turning up.

I don't think he meant the storm get literally zero away support but compared to that of a Sydney club it's tiny. Basically these clubs don't get the benefit of having some of their crowds almost doubled by facing another club in the region (like souths getting a 59K crowd for the last round).

I'm not complaining either it's one of the benefits of having a strong scene in Sydney.

 

[Timmah]

15,323 in a city of 5 million. That's pathetic.

Possibly the dumbest post I've ever read.

 

[Saint Doc]

15,323 in a city of 5 million. That's pathetic.

Can you believe the last soccer World Cup final only got a crowd a 84490 in a world of 7 billion?

Code in crisis

Derp.

 

[Jason Maher]

Which would be for the betterment of the game as a whole.

It's just a shame the city of Sydney can barely produce any good juniors anymore and need to steal them from other areas.

Keep trying mate. I'm sure you'll get a bite eventually.

 

[franklin2323]

15,323 in a city of 5 million. That's pathetic.

So that was 1 game was it?

that's the average not total so times that by 8. 122,584 people on average attended NRL in Sydney. Compare to other codes in any other city in world it stacks up pretty well. Especially as the popualtion is 5m

 

[Jason Maher]

15,323 in a city of 5 million. That's pathetic.

Or an average of 58,227 people every week attending an NRL game in Sydney. That's a far higher percentage of the population attending an NRL game each week than Brisbane (58,227 out 4.6 million vs 15,240 out of 2.2 million).

Not our fault the NRL would rather see sub 10k crowds in Sydney than play more games where fans want to watch them.

Yep, that's a completely accurate representation of the NRL's thinking on expansion. You will have your team one day. You might have had one now if you hadn't sold your soul to Uncle Rupert. In the meantime, spare us your butthurt and constant death-riding of Sydney clubs. Destroying an existing club to establish a new one is not in the best interests of the game, no matter how many times you anti-Sydney dickheads parrot that it is.

 

[Packy]

So this thread has taught me that people like to watch their team win more than they like to watch them lose.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

So this thread has taught me that people like to watch their team win more than they like to watch them lose.

Sort of. There is a perception that 'Sydney loves a winner', I believe the reality is 'Sydney protests at dud performances by not showing up', especially true with league fans.

 

[Packy]

I would suggest Brisbane teams have the wood on Sydney teams in that regard. When the Reds/Lions/Roar are going well up here you hear nothing else... when they aren't you hear nothing.

 

[Perth Red]

Difference is when your getting 30,000 and you lose 8,000 it still leaves a reasonable 22,000 fans going to games. When you've got 16,000 and you lose 6,000 then crowds look much worse.

Broncos have done well to build their crowds from 19-20k in 2001/2 up to 34/35k 2009/10 but have slipped with drop in form to 30-33k in last couple of years. The drop off isn;t that dramatic until this year.

 

[Timmah]

"have done well"?

They got a 52,500, all-seater stadium ON TOP of the action in 2003. It was a no f**king brainer after nearly ten years at QEII, where some seats where nearly 50-60m from the action.

Either way, to think Perth will sustain those sorts of numbers would be utterly foolish.

 

[Loudstrat]

Not our fault the NRL would rather see sub 10k crowds in Sydney than play more games where fans want to watch them.

Like Gosford. I cant think of anywhere else without an NRL side that would do better.

Difference is when your getting 30,000 and you lose 8,000 it still leaves a reasonable 22,000 fans going to games. When you've got 16,000 and you lose 6,000 then crowds look much worse.

Not as bad as when you have 16000 and lose your f*cking club :lol:

Broncos have done well to build their crowds from 19-20k in 2001/2 up to 34/35k 2009/10 but have slipped with drop in form to 30-33k in last couple of years. The drop off isn;t that dramatic until this year.

Yet the Brisbane residents go to less games on average than Sydney residents.

You really are f*cking brainless, arent you. You idea of a desirable club is one that screams in a mad panic for cash after 3 round in their first season :lol::lol:

 

[Packy]

Not to forget that the Stadium in Brisbane is easy as piss to get to from every where and public transport is included in EVERY single game.

 

[greg]

Or an average of 58,227 people every week attending an NRL game in Sydney. That's a far higher percentage of the population attending an NRL game each week than Brisbane (58,227 out 4.6 million vs 15,240 out of 2.2 million).



Yep, that's a completely accurate representation of the NRL's thinking on expansion. You will have your team one day. You might have had one now if you hadn't sold your soul to Uncle Rupert. In the meantime, spare us your butthurt and constant death-riding of Sydney clubs. Destroying an existing club to establish a new one is not in the best interests of the game, no matter how many times you anti-Sydney dickheads parrot that it is.

BINGO! CHECKMATE! AMEN! Most people on this forum understand this. Those with hidden agendas/hatreds don't.

 

[bobmar28]

So that was 1 game was it?

that's the average not total so times that by 8. 122,584 people on average attended NRL in Sydney. Compare to other codes in any other city in world it stacks up pretty well. Especially as the popualtion is 5m

Times 9 you mean, St George is a Sydney team.

Maybe we should have 18 teams in Sydney, that would boost the total. Stadiums would still be virtually empty for most games, that's the problem.

 

[franklin2323]

Times 9 you mean, St George is a Sydney team.

Maybe we should have 18 teams in Sydney, that would boost the total. Stadiums would still be virtually empty for most games, that's the problem.

They play half in Wollongong. Counting 8 makes up for the interstate games others play.

So tell me. I go for Penrith we play on the Sunday. Why the hell would I go to another Sydney game that same weekend? I do need to do stuff with the family sometimes.

That's the issue it's impossible for every fan to go to all 100 games in Sydney especially as most times games clash.

Compare that to Newcastle, Canberra or Brisbane that have 12 games only at home

 

[Timmah]

Times 9 you mean, St George is a Sydney team.

Maybe we should have 18 teams in Sydney, that would boost the total. Stadiums would still be virtually empty for most games, that's the problem.

You've banged on about this Sydney-culling idea for years... and each time you've never provided an explanation... how do you expect fans to stick around and support patched-up and merged teams?

I can't see a way of the process working without alienating thousands, sorry.

 

[LJC]

You've banged on about this Sydney-culling idea for years... and each time you've never provided an explanation... how do you expect fans to stick around and support patched-up and merged teams?

I can't see a way of the process working without alienating thousands, sorry.

Exactly!

More teams added to the NRL is the answer over a given time period with strategic logic used as extra teams are included.

Simple as that!

This progressive stance will also increase the attractiveness of RL to our juniors instead of them being enticed to other football codes.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

You've banged on about this Sydney-culling idea for years... and each time you've never provided an explanation... how do you expect fans to stick around and support patched-up and merged teams?

I can't see a way of the process working without alienating thousands, sorry.

I think there is your answer. If, for example, Penrith were to be kicked out, they have an attendance of 8000ish. That means the league would lose a few thousand fans others just support new teams.

Then, if Perth were to be brought in, they might bring 30,000 fans to games that have no chance of attending without this perth team. Thats a net gain of 20,000 fans straight away.

These numbers are completely hypothetical, but they show the point. certain teams would give greater value than others.

Now you could argue that we could keep Penrith and still bring in perth, which would be a fair point. But in the situation that we cant add teams, is it worth keeping penrith ahead of perth simply because they were already there.

And even if we do have both teams, is there another potential area (South nz, Adelaide) that has no access to a team, that would give more benefit than the existing teams.

Having said that, you need to decide what you are trying to accomplish with teams. Do you want a team with heritage playing in a dilapidated empty stadiums, do you want new (possibly generic brands) in packed stadiums, do you want shitty quality games that are right near your house, do you want the best talent in moneymaking stadiums.

AND when considering all of this, realise that you are inevitably biased towards certain answers because of your connection, or lack there of, to different teams.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

Lol you reckon there's only 8000 Penrith fans out there? That may be their hard core base but there would easily be 40,000+ people who go for the Panthers.

Just because they aren't sitting in the stadium every week doesn't mean they don't exist.

Anyone who thinks culling teams is a step forward is a moron.