Sydney relocations

[taipan]

That's great that the Sharks will have that going forward, but has that been the case in the past? The Sharks have been in some pretty perilous financial situations in the past and have had to come to the NRL cap-in-hand on more than one occasion and were pretty quick to grab Uncle Roops' cash when he came knocking. Who's to say something won't go wrong with the development or your future revenue? What will happen then? They'll be straight back on struggle street.

Yes, Manly would love to have that, but even if Manly were to end up in a worse state than the Sharks have been in before, they wouldn't be going anywhere- they're the only club in Sydney's North, a region with 1+ million people. Remove all the emotion surrounding Manly and how hated they are and it's pretty easy to see they're important to the NRL going forward. If the NRL has plans to reduce the number of teams in Sydney, then the Bears bid is dead in the water as they'll be another team eating into the Sydney market, existing NRL clubs will have their roles and territories expanded, i.e. Manly will likely end up with at least part of the North Shore (if not Manly, then possibly the Roosters instead) and whatever club gets punted/relocated/merged will have another team (or their merged entity) cover their former territory. Manly will, at the very least, be rock solid in their current location, or maybe covering more territory in the future- Cronulla doesn't have the luxury of having territory available to expand into, they're surrounded to the North and South by the Saints, the Tigers have Campbelltown and Souths and the Bulldogs have all the remaining areas to the North covered.

How isn't Manly vs Storm a real rivalry? In terms of Sydney teams vs out-of-state teams, it's one of the stronger rivalries, the two teams always rip into each other, they generally draw pretty strong crowds at both Manly and Melbourne's home grounds and the players seem to regard it as a legit rivalry, eg check out Widdop's recent interview where he calls the Manly vs Melbourne games some of Melbourne's biggest.

I have already stated any club that can't compete financially ,will be subject t relocation.
That being said ,if the Manly owners decide to call it a day down the line,what happens.These are all hypotheticals.At least the Sharks are doing it with bricks and mortar.

As the club will be debt free when the development has been finished
,own its own ground compeletely,with a refurbished League's club,have rental income from retail,the comaprsion with the debacles of prior years is ludicrous .It's chalk and cheese.
Not my view but Bruno Cullen.
To suggest the current development has been the case in the past is crazy logic.
Stage 1 already sold out.Stage 2 now getting ready for presale,all waterviews.


Forgetting of course the following housing developments 600 units at Sharks,750 at the Kirrawee Brick Pit site.Nearly 400 housing plots being built on at Greehills and Wanda.A proposed development for 2,000 home sites between Kurnell and Wanda.A similar number around Menai ,where the Indigenous owners want to get developed.The notion the area has nowhere to expand is rubbish.The Greenhills development is a case in point.
Plus high density housing going on throughout the Shire.

Additionally the club will not need financial input from private individuals.

 

[taipan]

The Queensland sides and the others outside of Sydney (except Newcastle maybe if the CC gets a team) will never build strong rivalries or that tribal nature like Sydney if things stay as they are for three reasons.

Firstly because every time a rivalry including a team from outside Sydney starts to form Nine does everything in it's power to kill it (except for Bris v Cows and Manly v Storm, the latter wasn't and isn't a real rivalry anyway ), for f##k knows what reasons if they're doing it intentionally at all.

Secondly because of the geographical distance between clubs outside of Sydney the areas that the clubs inhabit become all but completely under their control, so you don't get the same sort of environment like Sydney where opposition fans are literally living on top of each other.

Lastly because of the over saturation of Sydney clubs the natural rivals of the teams outside of Sydney cannot fit into the comp!

The first reason can't be fix by reshuffling the placement of clubs, but the other two can be fixed by expansion and relocation.

If our goal is to increase rivalry and tribalism outside of Sydney in the competition, then just look at this scenario for example.

If we removed two teams from Sydney and expanded the comp to fit two more in, we could theoretically add one team in Adelaide (they have a long standing rivalry with Melbourne), one in Brisbane (this ones obvious), one team in Wellington (they have a rivalry with Auckland and one could easily be nurtured with us here in Canberra) and lastly another team in Melbourne/Geelong/CQ/Cairns/CC/Bris3/SSC/a million other examples that theoretically could support NRL teams (once again they're all obvious).

Now that is not at all how I'd expand the comp or relocate teams, but for their to be more tribalism and rivalries outside of Sydney then the conditions need to be improved to make sure that it's in the game, but as it is there's not much we can do about it because once we expand to about 20-22 clubs we'll either need to go to a conference system or make room for clubs by removing others.

That's fine I agree with rivalry.
But if clubs are financially secure and do not have to rely in the main from poker machine revenue ,why should they be moved.
If clubs cannot compete financially ,then OK.
Canberra ATM has no real rivalry ,small crowds,so should they also be potential relocation targets?. I don't believe any club should .And the continual 9 clubs in Sydney is getting rather hollow.The city is growing ,not shrinking,not standing still.How about clubs get off their a*ses and grow the crowds .
I repeat,I am for expansion ,but not at the expense of viable clubs.ATM there are a couple of clubs apart from the Sharks(a tem situation) who are struggling.

 

[reanimate]

I have already stated any club that can't compete financially ,will be subject t relocation.
That being said ,if the Manly owners decide to call it a day down the line,what happens.These are all hypotheticals.At least the Sharks are doing it with bricks and mortar.

Given that Manly's had numerous parties fighting to be involved with the club, someone else would step in. If not, then the NRL would shore up their existence to maintain a constant presence in the North. The NRL isn't going to let the entirety of the North be without a club.

As the club will be debt free when the development has been finished
,own its own ground compeletely,with a refurbished League's club,have rental income from retail,the comaprsion with the debacles of prior years is ludicrous .It's chalk and cheese.
Not my view but Bruno Cullen.
To suggest the current development has been the case in the past is crazy logic.
Stage 1 already sold out.Stage 2 now getting ready for presale,all waterviews.


Forgetting of course the following housing developments 600 units at Sharks,750 at the Kirrawee Brick Pit site.Nearly 400 housing plots being built on at Greehills and Wanda.A proposed development for 2,000 home sites between Kurnell and Wanda.A similar number around Menai ,where the Indigenous owners want to get developed.The notion the area has nowhere to expand is rubbish.The Greenhills development is a case in point.
Plus high density housing going on throughout the Shire.

Additionally the club will not need financial input from private individuals.

If it all goes according to plan, then that'll be fantastic for the club, but if something goes awry along the way, then you'll be pretty much back to the same situation as before. E.g. what if businesses renting spots in the development don't do very well in the future and the Sharks don't make anywhere near as much rent as they expected? What if the development cash isn't enough in 20 years time to meet the demands of the future NRL's expenses?

In terms of the new housing developments, that's great, but it doesn't compare to the growth of areas like the west, and what Wollongong etc is capable of, nor does it compare to having a whole region to expand into like Manly/Easts/whoever else do with the North Shore.

Who knows though, maybe it'll be the Saints who go broke and get relocated/folded and Cronulla will pick up their former territory. I doubt the NRL will let anything happen to the teams who already merged though.

 

[georgesnmith]

people have been saying sydney has too many nrl teams for 10 years and not a single club has gone anywhere

the ARLC have supported both cronulla and wests tigers financially as well

as souths have shown any club can get 20k crowds if they market themselves

sydney doesnt have too many teams, i could easily make an argument to say it has too few.

id prefer camppbelltown to have their own team and a team on the north shore.

the only team which is in a small catchment is cronulla but with their development they will be one of the richest sydney clubs

 

[BuffaloRules]

No one yet has put forward any theories (Other than myself) as to why the AFL wont allow any of their Melbourne teams to go under or relocate, to the point where they are pumping in lots of money to keep a couple of them viable...

Anyone got any ideas?

Perth Red? The Great Dane?

 

[georgesnmith]

eddie mcguire was asked a few years back about mergers/relocations in AFL

he responded that after seeing what it did in rugby league they wouldnt do it

clubs were part of the "social fabric"

 

[BuffaloRules]

eddie mcguire was asked a few years back about mergers/relocations in AFL

he responded that after seeing what it did in rugby league they wouldnt do it

clubs were part of the "social fabric"

I don't disagreement with the sentiments, but in typically Eddie style, he forgets that the AFL have been down that path also...

Obviously the AFL is happy now though to continue their total saturation of their biggest market seemingly regardless of cost.

Won't even give the other codes the slightest chance to pick up any disgruntled fans.

 

[elbusto]

Given that Manly's had numerous parties fighting to be involved with the club, someone else would step in. If not, then the NRL would shore up their existence to maintain a constant presence in the North. The NRL isn't going to let the entirety of the North be without a club.

If it all goes according to plan, then that'll be fantastic for the club, but if something goes awry along the way, then you'll be pretty much back to the same situation as before. E.g. what if businesses renting spots in the development don't do very well in the future and the Sharks don't make anywhere near as much rent as they expected? What if the development cash isn't enough in 20 years time to meet the demands of the future NRL's expenses?

In terms of the new housing developments, that's great, but it doesn't compare to the growth of areas like the west, and what Wollongong etc is capable of, nor does it compare to having a whole region to expand into like Manly/Easts/whoever else do with the North Shore.

Who knows though, maybe it'll be the Saints who go broke and get relocated/folded and Cronulla will pick up their former territory. I doubt the NRL will let anything happen to the teams who already merged though.

Having just spent the weekend in Shark land, and it was my first visit, I was very impressed with the area and the potential there.

You simply have to have a Club there as it will continue to expand.

The Development will make a big difference to the Club. In ten years time it will be a boom area.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Honestly Perth Red your thought process that the panthers might be at risk is pretty bloody stupid.


The issue with the panthers has always been at management level. The potential has never been lacking.


Finally with Phil Gould we have someone who is getting the club moving on & off the field.


Memberships at an all time high. Might crack 13k next week.



A club with our potential will never go anywhere. To think otherwise disqualifies you from any meaningful discussion on the issue IMO.

 

[Perth Red]

No one yet has put forward any theories (Other than myself) as to why the AFL wont allow any of their Melbourne teams to go under or relocate, to the point where they are pumping in lots of money to keep a couple of them viable...

Anyone got any ideas?

Perth Red? The Great Dane?

Because they are now at saturation point and feel no need to put teams anywhere else so can spend their money maintaining the teams they have? I still don't know how the fans allow them to get away with charging them $1 each ticket to give to poor clubs!

 

[Perth Red]

Honestly Perth Red your thought process that the panthers might be at risk is pretty bloody stupid.


The issue with the panthers has always been at management level. The potential has never been lacking.


Finally with Phil Gould we have someone who is getting the club moving on & off the field.


Memberships at an all time high. Might crack 13k next week.



A club with our potential will never go anywhere. To think otherwise disqualifies you from any meaningful discussion on the issue IMO.

Two years ago they were on bones of their arse, they have traditionally had the smallest attendances in Sydney and poor memberships. Hopefully they can turn it around but the question was which clubs do you consider weakest. I would put the current (not potential) panthers in the bottom tier.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Two years ago they were on bones of their arse, they have traditionally had the smallest attendances in Sydney and poor memberships. Hopefully they can turn it around but the question was which clubs do you consider weakest. I would put the current (not potential) panthers in the bottom tier.

As I said it was management issues.


You dont relocate clubs that have huge potential that have had poor management.


We now have vastly more members than the tigers which you put in your silly '2nd tier'


And they are clearly in much more trouble than the panthers ever were. The panthers financial issues largely related to expanding the licenced club side of things much too quickly.


Unlike the tigers though we are asset rich & could easily sort out those problems.

Not all debt is what it seems.

 

[georgesnmith]

yeh penrith bone on their arse

penrith leagues clubs has assets over 300 million and made a profit i think over 12

invests millions into junior RL every year

they have a massive junior base

and other sports are desperate to expand into western sydney

lets just hand it to them

:crazy:

 

[georgesnmith]

I don't disagreement with the sentiments, but in typically Eddie style, he forgets that the AFL have been down that path also...

Obviously the AFL is happy now though to continue their total saturation of their biggest market seemingly regardless of cost.

Won't even give the other codes the slightest chance to pick up any disgruntled fans.

facing a choice between saturation in melbourne vs saturation in sydney id take sydney any time

richest city, highest incomes.

its why AFL is so desperate to try and crack it in sydney.

dont see why expansion cant be done by adding teams

end of the day no expansion team will add to TV rights or probably get the same crowds as sydney clubs

so 12,000 fans in perth with 50,000 watching on GEM and the ARLC pumping in 5 million a year to keep them viable is a better choice than a sydney club who averages 14k+, has 500,000 ppl watching in sydney and doesnt need a top up from head office?

WTF?

 

[georgesnmith]

heres a question to ponder ....

for the last TV rights deal which club was more valuable to viewers?

Melbourne Storm, multiple grand finalists and had $100 million pumped into them to keep them going

Cronulla sharks, weakest sydney club, never won a comp?

 

[typicalfan]

The competition is only as strong as it's weakest team.

Each team brings something to the table. Even last year between the two most hated sides was a resounding success.

 

[Headless Chook]

Having just spent the weekend in Shark land, and it was my first visit, I was very impressed with the area and the potential there.

You simply have to have a Club there as it will continue to expand.y

The Development will make a big difference to the Club. In ten years time it will be a boom area.

A single lane road in and out of the ground + no public transport + nowhere to park + no room to significantly expand the current stadium capacity should they wish to in the future = pretty much what has been going on since 1967.

Just waiting for the day when the NRL stipulates grounds must be able to seat 30,000 people plus. Then what happens?

 

[reanimate]

Having just spent the weekend in Shark land, and it was my first visit, I was very impressed with the area and the potential there.

You simply have to have a Club there as it will continue to expand.

The Development will make a big difference to the Club. In ten years time it will be a boom area.

The area does have potential, but so do plenty of other areas in Sydney, e.g. the Upper North Shore still has plenty of strong growth potential, even the Lower North Shore will continue to grow thanks to Chatswood CBD continuing to grow and expand, yet the North Shore has been left high and dry without a club.

There's enormous amounts of wealth on the North Shore and sponsorship opportunities to be had for a club allowed to be active in the area, while Cronulla still don't have a major sponsor. It just seems ridiculously cruel to have given Norths the boot while giving Cronulla chance after chance after chance, and to have them still be lacking essentials like a major sponsor after all this time. If they're going to stay, then I hope they do become a powerhouse club in the future to redeem the time they've spent in shambles.

heres a question to ponder ....

for the last TV rights deal which club was more valuable to viewers?

Melbourne Storm, multiple grand finalists and had $100 million pumped into them to keep them going

Cronulla sharks, weakest sydney club, never won a comp?

The Storm, easily. They've brought in more regular RL viewers in Melbourne who are actually starting to have an impact on ratings. E.g. Origin ratings in Melbourne are massive, and club games are on the rise. The Storm also rate well in the RL states, especially vs strong teams like Manly or Brisbane- those games are generally always ratings winners. Outside of their rivalries, Cronulla games are decent, ratings-wise, but their rivalries are their only real strong showings. E.g. Storm vs Panthers almost beat Sharks vs Dragons in Fox ratings, and the Dragons are the Sharks fiercest rivals.

 

[The Great Dane]

That's fine I agree with rivalry.
But if clubs are financially secure and do not have to rely in the main from poker machine revenue ,why should they be moved.
If clubs cannot compete financially ,then OK.
Canberra ATM has no real rivalry ,small crowds,so should they also be potential relocation targets?. I don't believe any club should .And the continual 9 clubs in Sydney is getting rather hollow.The city is growing ,not shrinking,not standing still.How about clubs get off their a*ses and grow the crowds .
I repeat,I am for expansion ,but not at the expense of viable clubs.ATM there are a couple of clubs apart from the Sharks(a tem situation) who are struggling.

Firstly we had a rivalry with the Steelers, it died down during our golden period but it was there.

We continue to hold to it to this day with the Dragons, unfortunately the Dragons have seen fit to take the Steelers juniors base and slowly attempted to hide all other evidence of their continued existence from sight, and Nine has seen fit to make sure that the 'Hoodoo' gets as little publicity or acknowledgment as possible.

BTW I don't see what difference rivalries make to rationalization.

Secondly many of the Sydney teams are not sustainable over the long term! My favorite examples being the Sharks and the Roosters

Cronulla with their new development won't be competitive on the field or off it for long if they don't again increase revenue to counter the rising costs of running an NRL team, and given the clubs history I'm not hopeful for them to say the least.

Once uncle Nick moves on the Roosters are f##ked, unless another extremely generous and wealthy backer jumps on broad (more wealthy and generous then Nick is to boot) or hundreds of millions of dollars worth of infrastructure and a large juniors area falls into their laps, both things unlikely to happen.

No one yet has put forward any theories (Other than myself) as to why the AFL wont allow any of their Melbourne teams to go under or relocate, to the point where they are pumping in lots of money to keep a couple of them viable...

Anyone got any ideas?

Perth Red? The Great Dane?

Must have missed the post your alluding to.

And Yeah I do have some ideas and would have thought that it was quite obvious, given their previous experiences with rationalization they have become very careful in the way that they now go about it.

They sensibly always look for a fall guy so that when they move to relocate a club it can never be blamed on them not stepping in to help the club as much as possible.

They push unfavorable clubs into harder and harder positions all the while outwardly backing them completely, but eventually they'll push them into a position that is just to much for the club to handle.

They seem to be pressing the Devils, Bulldogs, Roos and Hawks into such positions, and had it had been one of those clubs in the position that the Bombers are in instead of the Bombers, then they would have almost certainly been relocated.

 

[Perth Red]

heres a question to ponder ....

for the last TV rights deal which club was more valuable to viewers?

Melbourne Storm, multiple grand finalists and had $100 million pumped into them to keep them going

Cronulla sharks, weakest sydney club, never won a comp?

Melbourne, they draw bigger audiences and a GF featuring the Storm adds 900k melbourne viewers to the audience. Good luck getting 900k cronulla viewers!