Tribalism

[_Johnsy]

Tribalism barely exists in common stadia.

what a load of horse shyte, at the titans home game v drags 1/2 of the crowd were in red and white.

 

[Cloud9]

Rather than rationalising the game in Sydney, why can't we grow the game so there is more for everyone? People forget the game goes in cycles it will rise again. Also the real issue is the lack of proactive management that isn't tied by self interest not a perceived idea that there are too many teams in Sydney.

People seem to think culling Sydney teams or merging them makes for super clubs elsewhere.

People need to look at the stats and that is in Canberra, Gosford, Auckland, Melbourne and Wollongong crowds average LESS than Sydney. Adelaide and Perth (ave 13,000 in 1995 and 8500 in 1996) would be around the same mark.

Merging clubs doesn't grow clubs either eg St.George Illawarra averaged 12,500 this year which is about what Saints averaged on their own in 1994 and Illawarra averaged 12,000 in 1994.

It's all wishful thinking that we will get these powerhouse clubs.

Outside of Victoria, NSW and Queensland we only really need Perth. Why is Adelaide so important to the success of our code?

You quoted crowd at stadiums, not all fans can travel. What about memberships?

 

[Knightmare]

All this talk of culling/ merging teams to make the competition better is a load of garbage. Saying we need 10 clubs as strong as Brisbane is silly as well, because the only reason the Broncos have been the success they are is because they are a 1 team town in the capital city of a Rugby League state. If Easts were the only NRL team in Sydney, how many comps do you think they would have won in the past 20 years? And what do you think their average crowds would be?

If we kick out established clubs with long standing history in place of a bunch of $2 shelf companies with no history, the game will lose all its' soul. Most people wouldn't give a damn about the game. The Super 14's are miles ahead of us- they have 1 team in Qld, 1 in NSW, a team in Perth, teams in NZ and South Africa even- they should be romping all over us using that logic. But the reality is, nobody except die-hard Rugger Buggers give a remote s**t about the Super 14.

 

[charlie]

All this talk of culling/ merging teams to make the competition better is a load of garbage. Saying we need 10 clubs as strong as Brisbane is silly as well, because the only reason the Broncos have been the success they are is because they are a 1 team town in the capital city of a Rugby League state. If Easts were the only NRL team in Sydney, how many comps do you think they would have won in the past 20 years? And what do you think their average crowds would be?

If we kick out established clubs with long standing history in place of a bunch of $2 shelf companies with no history, the game will lose all its' soul. Most people wouldn't give a damn about the game. The Super 14's are miles ahead of us- they have 1 team in Qld, 1 in NSW, a team in Perth, teams in NZ and South Africa even- they should be romping all over us using that logic. But the reality is, nobody except die-hard Rugger Buggers give a remote s**t about the Super 14.

That is the point I'm trying to make. If Sydney had say 4 teams and they were run as well as Brisbane they would all be supper clubs like Brisbane. Add Newcastle,Townsville,Gold Coast,Canberra, Melbourne, New Zealand and new clubs from Qld, Perth and possibly Darwin you will have a true national comp. Because of the larger national exposure clubs will attract more sponsorship income and at the same time increase the number of supperters.
I don't except that die hard Sydney supporters will abandon the game they will just pick a new team. Just look at the Cowboys and the Gold Coast the majority of their supporters were once Bronco Supporters untill they got their own local team. So support can change because it's the game the supporters really love.
As far as Union not measuring up with their international comp,they made a big mistake selling out to pay TV, and secondly we have a far better product then Union.

 

[Spitty]

The facts are all the Sydney teams are strongly supported. But unfortunately RL can be a bludger of a game to watch live and is a great game to watch on TV. Add to that Sydney is a bludger of a place to get around (especially on a Friday and Saturday night), so Channel nine and Fox get great ratings for a bargain basement price and the clubs get sweet FA. Add to that channel 9 don't spread a fair balance of clubs on FTA TV and again the richer clubs sponsors are getting massive exposure and paying more for the sponsorship, while the poorer club sponsors are gettting FA exposure for there dollar. Thus some clubs are struggling and it looks like no one in Sydney supports there team.

So yes, you will loose fans to AFL if you close down Sydney clubs. TV ratings will go down, sponsorship dollars will go with it and crowd figures for the remaining Sydney clubs will stay much the same. That's all closing down Sydney teams will achieve. Hopefully this membership drive will increase crowds in Sydney on a yearly basis. But sustainable change has to be gradual.

I don't see any reason why in the future we can't have 18 teams including a WA team and Central Coast and most if not all Sydney team. To me a 2nd Brisbane team only serves to weaken the Broncos but I'm willing to admit I don't know a lot about any such proposals.

For the record if my club closed, I wouldn't walk away from RL.

 

[BrisVegas]

Theres been a lot of debate recently about whether there are too many Sydney teams competing in a limited market. A few posters have suggested that too many Sydney teams are holding back the growth of the game. Traditionalists argue that Sydney teams are the very fabric of the game, steeped in history and tribalism.

However, at what point does this turf war become detrimental to the greater good of the game? Is the idea of traditional rivalries a false notion because relationships ebb and flow, old rivalries die and new ones form.

I believe that tribalism is different to nationalism - which has plagued the sport of soccer in the past and scaring off mainstream support.

I think its an issue that an independent commission can try to resolve. Some rivalries i see as quite entertaining and good for the game (Souths vs Easts) and should be preserved.

Can some of theses existing tribes merge and form an alliance? Having said that, the South-Eastern furry Chooks sounds appealing.
If these Sydney clubs don't cut the mustard, they should be demoted but not destroyed to preserve what ever tradition they have. The Newtown Jets are still around.

One of the better opening posts I've read on this forum, and excellent well thought out responses so far (All the kids must have been dragged away from their computers by their parents).

An article in the SMH earlier this year was particularly telling. Apparently after the CEO's conference the club bosses met at a bar and were discussing how to solve the games' Sydney issues. It was accepted amongst themselves that there were too many teams in the Sydney market and things had to change. Yet the moment talk shifted to who might go, self preservation (understandably) kicked in.

When the club bosses themselves are in agreement there are too many Sydney, you can be almost certain that it is a true.


The day the single club cities were invited to play in the Sydney suburban competition, many a Sydney club was more or less handed a death notice. All the money that flowed into the game at the outbreak of the Super League war has mearly delayed the inevitable for a decade.

With the sponsorship, populations, 3rd party agreements and favourable stadium deals conspiring against them, it is only a matter of time until numerous Sydney clubs are out spent into oblivion. With most Sydney clubs stuck making the minimum guarantee at whatever stadium they are playing at, for about $1m a year in gate takings, they have no chance over the long term competing against the clubs making a gate of $5m-$10m

In the end I believe that the NRL will solve this problem the way it knows best - by doing nothing. Market forces will cull 2 to 3 clubs from the Sydney region and the NRL will watch it happen while putting on a sad face to the media. This of course creates the problem of the remaining clubs having an non-ideal geographic spread, but hopefully that is something that can be fixed later.

A also believe that some of the games best tribal rivalries have developed over the past decade - Bronocs v Cowboys, Broncos v Titans, Broncos v Storm, Storm v Dragons, and Storm v Warriors are all developing into blockbuster match ups.

If there was an easy solution it would have been implemented by now.

 

[charlie]

The facts are all the Sydney teams are strongly supported. But unfortunately RL can be a bludger of a game to watch live and is a great game to watch on TV. Add to that Sydney is a bludger of a place to get around (especially on a Friday and Saturday night), so Channel nine and Fox get great ratings for a bargain basement price and the clubs get sweet FA. Add to that channel 9 don't spread a fair balance of clubs on FTA TV and again the richer clubs sponsors are getting massive exposure and paying more for the sponsorship, while the poorer club sponsors are gettting FA exposure for there dollar. Thus some clubs are struggling and it looks like no one in Sydney supports there team.

So yes, you will loose fans to AFL if you close down Sydney clubs. TV ratings will go down, sponsorship dollars will go with it and crowd figures for the remaining Sydney clubs will stay much the same. That's all closing down Sydney teams will achieve. Hopefully this membership drive will increase crowds in Sydney on a yearly basis. But sustainable change has to be gradual.

I don't see any reason why in the future we can't have 18 teams including a WA team and Central Coast and most if not all Sydney team. To me a 2nd Brisbane team only serves to weaken the Broncos but I'm willing to admit I don't know a lot about any such proposals.

For the record if my club closed, I wouldn't walk away from RL.

So you are saying yourself and other supporters will become AFL supporters if their team is no longer in the NRL. I don't see the sense in that as these supporters will have to support a new team weather it be NRL or AFL. Don't you think the majority will stick with the game they know and love?
As far as sponsorships go their will be bigger pieces of the pie for the remaining clubs to share.

 

[krudmonk]

what a load of horse shyte, at the titans home game v drags 1/2 of the crowd were in red and white.

That just shows you're all fans of different teams, dullard. It says nothing about where the teams are from and what they represent. When the Bunnies and Dogs play at ANZ, who is home? Whose turf is being defended? That part of it is washed away. Read a little deeper next time.

Also, your example of two teams from different states is total crap in regards to this topic.

 

[charlie]

One of the better opening posts I've read on this forum, and excellent well thought out responses so far (All the kids must have been dragged away from their computers by their parents).

An article in the SMH earlier this year was particularly telling. Apparently after the CEO's conference the club bosses met at a bar and were discussing how to solve the games' Sydney issues. It was accepted amongst themselves that there were too many teams in the Sydney market and things had to change. Yet the moment talk shifted to who might go, self preservation (understandably) kicked in.

When the club bosses themselves are in agreement there are too many Sydney, you can be almost certain that it is a true.


The day the single club cities were invited to play in the Sydney suburban competition, many a Sydney club was more or less handed a death notice. All the money that flowed into the game at the outbreak of the Super League war has mearly delayed the inevitable for a decade.

With the sponsorship, populations, 3rd party agreements and favourable stadium deals conspiring against them, it is only a matter of time until numerous Sydney clubs are out spent into oblivion. With most Sydney clubs stuck making the minimum guarantee at whatever stadium they are playing at, for about $1m a year in gate takings, they have no chance over the long term competing against the clubs making a gate of $5m-$10m

In the end I believe that the NRL will solve this problem the way it knows best - by doing nothing. Market forces will cull 2 to 3 clubs from the Sydney region and the NRL will watch it happen while putting on a sad face to the media. This of course creates the problem of the remaining clubs having an non-ideal geographic spread, but hopefully that is something that can be fixed later.

A also believe that some of the games best tribal rivalries have developed over the past decade - Bronocs v Cowboys, Broncos v Titans, Broncos v Storm, Storm v Dragons, and Storm v Warriors are all developing into blockbuster match ups.

If there was an easy solution it would have been implemented by now.

The solution is easy it's the implication that's hard. I have just read Wayne Bennetts book have a read and tell me IF he isn't the one who should be running the NRL?

 

[Perth Red]

Culling Sydney teams won't solve some of the major issues the NRL faces. First and foremost the NRL has to get the game on FTA at a decent time across the country. Until it does that we will not attract decent sponsors regardless of where teams are.

Secondly it has to have a long term strategy for expanding the game at both grass roots level and at the pinnacle of the game.

Finally it has to find ways of making sure the under performing clubs (wherever they are) do not hold the sport back. I think Sydney is a bot of a smoke screen for a whole raft of problems the game faces.

Frustrating thing is we are not too far from being the countries Number 1 code, its just getting that next step that seems to elude us at the moment.

 

[Lockyer4President!]

In the end I believe that the NRL will solve this problem the way it knows best - by doing nothing. Market forces will cull 2 to 3 clubs from the Sydney region and the NRL will watch it happen while putting on a sad face to the media.

Gallop has been quoted as saying that he see's the many clubs in Sydney as a strength of the comp and that if any of the current Sydney clubs fell on hard times that the NRL would step in an give struggling clubs handouts, like the AFL already do for their 3 or 4 almost dead clubs.

 

[Perth Red]

Gallop has been quoted as saying that he see's the many clubs in Sydney as a strength of the comp and that if any of the current Sydney clubs fell on hard times that the NRL would step in an give struggling clubs handouts, like the AFL already do for their 3 or 4 almost dead clubs.

If the NRL's got spare millions floating around it should be using it to grow the game, not keep deadwood afloat!

 

[RL1908]

So you are saying yourself and other supporters will become AFL supporters if their team is no longer in the NRL. I don't see the sense in that as these supporters will have to support a new team weather it be NRL or AFL. Don't you think the majority will stick with the game they know and love?

You are right that there is no sense in that - but it happens.

The theory behind the late 1990s club mergers was that they would have the combined number of fans of both clubs, plus gain more fans from their success.

In reality, their support today is roughly akin to just one of the pre-merged clubs. In other words, only 1 in 2 embraced the merger. So where did all the other fans go? Norths are gone, but their fans aren't turning up at Brookie cheering on Manly.

It is somewhat like "a lover spurned" - the response of fan who has lost their club is at first all wrath and vindictiveness.

In changing codes they are looking for a fresh start. To stay with RL they are constantly lamenting their lost club.

They don't see themselves as changing clubs, but changing sports (choosing a club is incidental) - they are deliberately turning their back on the sport that has betrayed their loyalty.

I was a Manly fan before the Northern Eagles - even though everyone said that it was Manly in disguise, I still couldn't stomach supporting the merger. I didn't turn away from an interest in RL (clearly!), but I didn't pick another NRL club to support either.

 

[charlie]

if The Nrl's Got Spare Millions Floating Around It Should Be Using It To Grow The Game, Not Keep Deadwood Afloat!

couldn't Agree More

 

[hillbillyjazzer1954]

people who think that tribalism is not the roots of our game, are deadset kidding themselves........ read any thread where there is Manly Fans vs Norths fans or Manly vs Parramatta Fans, Tigers Fans vs Canberra Fans,
St George fans vs Cronulla Fans and the Granddaddy of them all Easts vs Souths Fans......that is why tribalism is
the roots of our great game,
you get rid of that and you have nothing, but a generic boring game, with no heart

 

[greg]

what a load of horse shyte, at the titans home game v drags 1/2 of the crowd were in red and white.

:alcho: I'm impressed Johnsy, I thought you may not have full memory of the eveinng.

 

[Knightmare]

That is the point I'm trying to make. If Sydney had say 4 teams and they were run as well as Brisbane they would all be supper clubs like Brisbane. Add Newcastle,Townsville,Gold Coast,Canberra, Melbourne, New Zealand and new clubs from Qld, Perth and possibly Darwin you will have a true national comp. Because of the larger national exposure clubs will attract more sponsorship income and at the same time increase the number of supperters.
I don't except that die hard Sydney supporters will abandon the game they will just pick a new team. Just look at the Cowboys and the Gold Coast the majority of their supporters were once Bronco Supporters untill they got their own local team. So support can change because it's the game the supporters really love.
As far as Union not measuring up with their international comp,they made a big mistake selling out to pay TV, and secondly we have a far better product then Union.

The difference though is that the Broncos weren't the result of a merger. The QRL teams went on playing, they were in a different comp to the Broncos. That wouldn't be the case in Sydney however. Teams like Souths have been playing in the premier competition for over 100 years. You can't just kill tradition like that.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Why cull teams before the leaders of our game have exhausted every avenue in which we can earn money. Sydney clubs are a strength of the game not a weakness.

 

[Cloud9]

You are right that there is no sense in that - but it happens.

The theory behind the late 1990s club mergers was that they would have the combined number of fans of both clubs, plus gain more fans from their success.

In reality, their support today is roughly akin to just one of the pre-merged clubs. In other words, only 1 in 2 embraced the merger. So where did all the other fans go? Norths are gone, but their fans aren't turning up at Brookie cheering on Manly.

It is somewhat like "a lover spurned" - the response of fan who has lost their club is at first all wrath and vindictiveness.

In changing codes they are looking for a fresh start. To stay with RL they are constantly lamenting their lost club.

You're right. The merging process is alot more difficult than simply adding 1+1=2. The psychological hurdle and grievance process must come first. It involves reconciling with one's sense of identity. In an ideal world , a merged club would be like the Brady bunch, but its not. You can't start on clean slate like clubs in the NFL, because the historical links are still there and with that memories and a lot of baggage.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Think of it as if union and league merged would you follow the game or move on?