What was the reason...

[LeagueXIII]

Not so, Balmain bring alot to the game as do Norths. You seem to be thinking as an accountant, passion is never listed on a balance sheet, this is what these clubs supporters had which is no longer there.

Wests Tigers may not have drawn big crowds in their early years but compared to Balmain and Wests they did pretty well.

WT is made up of Balmain and Wests, I have given you the figures which show that WT draw NO MORE than what Balmain and Wests did. What business would turn away half their customers, it's crazy. If you can't see that thee clubs no longer exist not because they couldn't afford to bu purely for some cold business decision ie 14 clubs was the number than you need to get a healthy dose of cynicism. WT just lost 2500 people per game in 2007.

think you forget how poor both these clubs were as stand alone entities. They couldn't compete in a comp with standards lower than they are now.

Balmain made the GF in 1988 and 1989 and were one of the top sides in the 1980's, the 90's were their rebuilding years. You can not judge a club on a season. Look at the way Manly have rebuilt, Souths etc. It's all a cycle.

Whilst I agree Souths are at an advantage with Russel Crowe, what is needed for clubs today is to get rid of old footballers running them and replaced with corporate type people to maximise revnue. PHC has come out and said league is massively sold short. RL needs to see how AFL is run, they seem to coe with 10 clubs i a smaller market and there clubs ave 25-30,000 members. They nurture their game, we run from the problem.

Balmain had no juniors, a facility that wasn't considered up to scratch, a poor squad, not enough money or draw to improve the squad (especially with more competition for players) and a league that rightly or wrongly wasn't prepared to pay out an extra revenue to weak clubs in a flooded Sydney market. The game would literally be poorer for having them there now. Every club costs the NRL about $3mil a year or whatever the grant is these days

The Roosters have no juniors, Balmain isabout middle of the road junior wise. Ye the Roosters manage and are still in the competition and their crowds were poorer than Balmain's as was their playing record until 1996. The clubs are the one's that bring the money in so why shouldn't it go back to them. A healthy competition has a flow on affect. It's a myth the Sydney market is flooded, if it were why should it be RL clubs who move out the way only for other sports to take advantage. Besides do you honestly think that getting rid of a few has a benifit for the others, I can tell you it doesn't. Having teams cover all areas of Sydney only strengthens the gam as it is th base of the sport, weken it and you cn forget RL as a big sport. It is the Sydney market that drives the game.

The game does exist outside Sydney, like in Melbourne who make a loss ever year and produce no juniors, should we help them as they cost more to run than he $9million you claim for the Sydney clubs? Of course, as it's all about growing the pie, the more the merrier.

 

[LeagueXIII]

How can the following be good for RL:

Mergers were supposed to bring big crowds, strong teams etc. It seems to me the only winner is the accountant.


Combined Average attendance 1990-99

Balmain and Wests 16,520 (a very poor decade performance wise for both clubs)
St.George and Illawarra 20,688 (Saints made 3 Grand Finals)
Manly and Norths 24,433

Combined Average 2000-2007

Wests Tigers 14,595 (Won a premiership and made the semis)
St.George/Illawarra 13,058 (Made 1999 Grand final, regularly in semis and premiership threat)
Northern Eagles/Manly 10,885

So what are the near 25,000 people who regularly attended matches now doing. Is league that strong that it can reject so many people??

 

[Gee_Up]

I'd like the evolution of Rugby League to continue. With the current strangle hold on the game by Channel Nine and FOX the games development is geniused and Soccer and AFL are continuing to take ground.

 

[Titanic]

In the end, the posturing around "tradition" is only relevant if there is a long-term viable solution. The argument of "it should be because it was" is absolutely indefensible. Fans are drawn to League because of the excellent sport that it is. The re-positioning of the country teams based on changing demographics has been happening for generations and is a working example constantly in progress - this is traditional. So why not the Sydney clubs?

Have we all forgotten that once the NRL cum ARL was the Sydney Rugby League? I am a traditionalist and hate Stupid League for all that it did to the games heartland by dividing supporters but I am also a realist.

When I was a kid there was no Gold Coast team and we couldn't have supported one then if we wanted to. Now we can and so can the Central Coast, just like NQ and Melbourne. Australia doesn't have the population base to expand like the USA to football conferences so something must give. Just adding teams isn't the solution - adding viable teams is though and replacing those that can't measure up. Don't kill them off or merge then, follow the Bluebags way.

The success of the AFL Lions and Swans only came when their Melbourne ties were severely diluted and they developed a local culture. Traditionalism is tied to community not only to the name of the club eg if you put Norths into Gosford you don't get a re-positioned North Sydney at all - you get an entirely new club. Better to be the Gosford Geese than the Lost Bears imo.

 

[Gee_Up]

Working class fans don't relate to them? That would be why league is huge in working class areas like Western Sydney (with a population of two and a half million) and dying in upper class places like the Eastern Suburbs.

Considering there are plenty of AFL and Soccer fields in all districts in Sydney, it's safe to assume that AFL and Soccer has "eaten into" our working class fan base.

Participation of youth in a sport is also a clear indicator of how the future of that sport is fairing, but that's another argument.

 

[eels_fan_01]

I'd like the evolution of Rugby League to continue. With the current strangle hold on the game by Channel Nine and FOX the games development is geniused and Soccer and AFL are continuing to take ground.

AFL is our only threat at the moment.

The A-League however drawing better crowds than the previous competition still doesnt provide any sort of ratings to pressure league.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Not so, Balmain bring alot to the game as do Norths. You seem to be thinking as an accountant, passion is never listed on a balance sheet, this is what these clubs supporters had which is no longer there.



WT is made up of Balmain and Wests, I have given you the figures which show that WT draw NO MORE than what Balmain and Wests did. What business would turn away half their customers, it's crazy. If you can't see that thee clubs no longer exist not because they couldn't afford to bu purely for some cold business decision ie 14 clubs was the number than you need to get a healthy dose of cynicism. WT just lost 2500 people per game in 2007.



Balmain made the GF in 1988 and 1989 and were one of the top sides in the 1980's, the 90's were their rebuilding years. You can not judge a club on a season. Look at the way Manly have rebuilt, Souths etc. It's all a cycle.

Whilst I agree Souths are at an advantage with Russel Crowe, what is needed for clubs today is to get rid of old footballers running them and replaced with corporate type people to maximise revnue. PHC has come out and said league is massively sold short. RL needs to see how AFL is run, they seem to coe with 10 clubs i a smaller market and there clubs ave 25-30,000 members. They nurture their game, we run from the problem.



The Roosters have no juniors, Balmain isabout middle of the road junior wise. Ye the Roosters manage and are still in the competition and their crowds were poorer than Balmain's as was their playing record until 1996. The clubs are the one's that bring the money in so why shouldn't it go back to them. A healthy competition has a flow on affect. It's a myth the Sydney market is flooded, if it were why should it be RL clubs who move out the way only for other sports to take advantage. Besides do you honestly think that getting rid of a few has a benifit for the others, I can tell you it doesn't. Having teams cover all areas of Sydney only strengthens the gam as it is th base of the sport, weken it and you cn forget RL as a big sport. It is the Sydney market that drives the game.

The game does exist outside Sydney, like in Melbourne who make a loss ever year and produce no juniors, should we help them as they cost more to run than he $9million you claim for the Sydney clubs? Of course, as it's all about growing the pie, the more the merrier.

You're kidding yourself. Melbourne are worth more to RL than any of Balmain, Wests, Norths etc. And soccer has shown what can happen if you focus on fewer clubs. Sydney FC would cost the FFA less than all the old sh*tty Sydney NSL clubs and they draw more support, both spectator and corporate. You also claim that getting business people to run clubs is the way to go yet when News Ltd took over the game they culled clubs. It's all a load of contradictory rubbish. The Sydney clubs that disappeared or merged were weak and not worh the money the game was spending on them. Today we'd b better off not spending money on them either. Expansion clubs bring far more to the table than has-been clubs that couldn't even hack it in the old days and that's where the game's revenue should be going. This expansion brings in the cash so it should go back to expanding the game. Any argument that Balmain or Norths would be strong and competitive now if they'd survived is pure speculation and ignores all the reasons why they disappeared in the first place and wouldn't have survived the past decade.

 

[Sonic Star]

I believe there is to many teams in Sydney at this current point. The Roosters should move to the Central Coast.
There is no real reason for them to stay in Sydney these days. They have little support in their local area, no junior comp. They don't even have the Eastern Suburbs name no more.
Most of their supporters have moved out of Sydney due to expensive living. They have lots of fans who live in the Central Coast.
Central Coast has a large following and a large junior base, it would be a perfect fit for them. The true fans would watch them play there.

Central Coast Roosters is a must.

 

[joshreading]

Whilst I agree that the merged clubs still have a way to go the 'combined' clubs average does not actually work.

You would need to take atleast 1/2 the away fans from the combined average. As you are talking of two different games with different sets of away fans. AND THEN you nearly halve the given expenses because you are only running one team with nearly double the crowds - merch etc.

The merged clubs are ultimately far more viable and in time you will see teams like Wests Tigers average over 25000 a year (and maybe even 30000 in time)

I also think Australia is certainly not too small for two conferences - Syd based and national based - home and away and then each other team once. Easy.

 

[Canard]

Balmain and Wests officials and ex-player openly admit if they didnt merge they were both gone, not just because of the "criteria" because they were both going big time broke.

Just as an aside, does anyone remember at the time that it was commonly thought that Balmain would merge with Parramatta and become the "Parramatta Tigers".

After Balmain and Wests announced there partnership, Parra came out in the press and got all pissy about it.

I think the merger was the best outcome, it allowed two "weaker" clubs to survive in some form and made a stronger club for those supporters to be able to follow.

 

[Titanic]

Whilst I agree that the merged clubs still have a way to go the 'combined' clubs average does not actually work.

You would need to take atleast 1/2 the away fans from the combined average. As you are talking of two different games with different sets of away fans. AND THEN you nearly halve the given expenses because you are only running one team with nearly double the crowds - merch etc.

The merged clubs are ultimately far more viable and in time you will see teams like Wests Tigers average over 25000 a year (and maybe even 30000 in time)

I also think Australia is certainly not too small for two conferences - Syd based and national based - home and away and then each other team once. Easy.

Fair comments but (1) your merger debate regarding budgetary issues is spot on while the issue of supporter base isn't quite right. By the time it takes to increase a merged club's supporter-base, the "traditional" club supporter has evolved into the new club's supporter. This is not the same - just ask any of the Tigers/Maggies or Saints/Steelers or Norths or Newtown or Glebe or Crushers if there are any of them left - they have all become something new or dream of the old days. My feeling is not to relocate or merge but develop a new expansion club to reflect the new territory. (2) The conference ogre means a shortened season - great some will shout but it panders to all those big budgeted player managers and disregards the attrition factor. I know, I argue development against tradition but some things need to remain ... lol. (3) also not so "easy" as National based means the costs for the travel must be equally shared by the Syd-based clubs even when not travelling and they have not been overly enthusiastic to shoulder their share in the past.

 

[jamesgould]

Balmain and Wests officials and ex-player openly admit if they didnt merge they were both gone, not just because of the "criteria" because they were both going big time broke.

Just as an aside, does anyone remember at the time that it was commonly thought that Balmain would merge with Parramatta and become the "Parramatta Tigers".

After Balmain and Wests announced there partnership, Parra came out in the press and got all pissy about it.

I think the merger was the best outcome, it allowed two "weaker" clubs to survive in some form and made a stronger club for those supporters to be able to follow.

Yes, I think it's fairly obvious that both these clubs were really on struggle street - particularly Wests.

Considering Newcastle, a one club town which has among the best crowds in the comp (admittedly no leagues club) was on the verge on going bankrupt back in 2005, I can't see how Wests and Balmain would have managed to keep going for all that time.

 

[jamesgould]

I believe there is to many teams in Sydney at this current point. The Roosters should move to the Central Coast.
There is no real reason for them to stay in Sydney these days. They have little support in their local area, no junior comp. They don't even have the Eastern Suburbs name no more.
Most of their supporters have moved out of Sydney due to expensive living. They have lots of fans who live in the Central Coast.
Central Coast has a large following and a large junior base, it would be a perfect fit for them. The true fans would watch them play there.

Central Coast Roosters is a must.

The Roosters relocating to the Central Coast does actually make a lot of sense.

 

[adamkungl]

I believe there is to many teams in Sydney at this current point. The Roosters should move to the Central Coast.
There is no real reason for them to stay in Sydney these days. They have little support in their local area, no junior comp. They don't even have the Eastern Suburbs name no more.
Most of their supporters have moved out of Sydney due to expensive living. They have lots of fans who live in the Central Coast.
Central Coast has a large following and a large junior base, it would be a perfect fit for them. The true fans would watch them play there.

Central Coast Roosters is a must.

What drivel. Imo if the competition should expand it should do so without any relocation or clubs folding, unless of their own accord.
No reason to be in Sydney? Forget the junior comp, I'm not getting into an argument over that. Roosters have fans all over Sydney, as does every club. We are no better a candidate for Central Coast than Souths. Not to mention you're kidding yourself if you think CC wants another Sydney team. Wake the f**k up.

 

[Minotaur]

I agree that the Roosters moving to the Central Coast would be the best option. If you follow the Roosters, it shouldn't matter if they played out of the SFS, or BlueTongue in Gosford, a true fan will still travel.

 

[Sonic Star]

What drivel. Imo if the competition should expand it should do so without any relocation or clubs folding, unless of their own accord.
No reason to be in Sydney? Forget the junior comp, I'm not getting into an argument over that. Roosters have fans all over Sydney, as does every club. We are no better a candidate for Central Coast than Souths. Not to mention you're kidding yourself if you think CC wants another Sydney team. Wake the f**k up.

It's you who has to wake up. There is no need for the Roosters to be in Sydney and if a few extra thousand fans have to drive down to the central coast so be it.
They will get larger crowds than they would at the SFS.

Mentioning Souths to go tot he central coast is just pretty stupid and you not thinking of course, Souths has way to much in sydney and hell of a lot more fans than the Roosters in sydney.

You cant even give me a good logical reason why the roosters shouldnt move and ive given great examples of why they should.

IF you want to have your little Souths v Easts battle each thread go ahead and change the subject all the time.
fact is the the central coast needs a team, the Roosters can still keep the name Roosters and just change Sydney to Central Coast.
They have changed their name so many times you wouldn't think it would matter so much. After a few years the Sydney tag will dissapear and they will be a true Central Coast team, everything will take time, but I still think the crowds will be good numbers. Better than what the roosters pull at SFS

 

[Knightmare]

The reason the comp shrunk to 14 was because the ARL ideally wanted a 16 team competition while News. wanted 12, so 14 was struck as the peace deal. Any bet if things had carried on as they did we would have gone to 12 anyway, we all know who was running the game then. And to think if the ARL clubs hadn't entered into that peace "treaty" with Sewerleague late in '97 and gone on just one more year as a stand alone comp, News. would have f**ked off and never been heard from again!

 

[adamkungl]

It's you who has to wake up. There is no need for the Roosters to be in Sydney and if a few extra thousand fans have to drive down to the central coast so be it.
They will get larger crowds than they would at the SFS.

Mentioning Souths to go tot he central coast is just pretty stupid and you not thinking of course, Souths has way to much in sydney and hell of a lot more fans than the Roosters in sydney.

You cant even give me a good logical reason why the roosters shouldnt move and ive given great examples of why they should.

IF you want to have your little Souths v Easts battle each thread go ahead and change the subject all the time.
fact is the the central coast needs a team, the Roosters can still keep the name Roosters and just change Sydney to Central Coast.
They have changed their name so many times you wouldn't think it would matter so much. After a few years the Sydney tag will dissapear and they will be a true Central Coast team, everything will take time, but I still think the crowds will be good numbers. Better than what the roosters pull at SFS

More garbage. Fact is the CC have shown they don't want some aborted Sydney team. You can keep being an arrogant prick and spewing out your myths about Souths having 'way too much in sydney' and Roosters having few fans, but you are delusional. The crowds of pretty much every Sydney team depend on success. Roosters had a fairly poor year this year, but were a fair way from the worst. In a successful year we pull 18000+. If you want to base your relocation suggestion on idiotic claims that we have no fans, and a single years crowd figures, and call this a great example of why we should relocate, then you're going to get an argument from anyone half sensible. I'm not attempting to turn this into another fan war, I brought Souths up purely and simply because they are located 10 mins down the road from Roosters, and this and other factors make them no better or worse a candidate for relocation, other than Rooster hatred. It was you who put words into my mouth. I never even suggested they should relocate. I clearly said I don't think any team should relocate.

 

[Sonic Star]

More garbage. Fact is the CC have shown they don't want some aborted Sydney team. You can keep being an arrogant prick and spewing out your myths about Souths having 'way too much in sydney' and Roosters having few fans, but you are delusional. The crowds of pretty much every Sydney team depend on success. Roosters had a fairly poor year this year, but were a fair way from the worst. In a successful year we pull 18000+. If you want to base your relocation suggestion on idiotic claims that we have no fans, and a single years crowd figures, and call this a great example of why we should relocate, then you're going to get an argument from anyone half sensible. I'm not attempting to turn this into another fan war, I brought Souths up purely and simply because they are located 10 mins down the road from Roosters, and this and other factors make them no better or worse a candidate for relocation, other than Rooster hatred. It was you who put words into my mouth. I never even suggested they should relocate. I clearly said I don't think any team should relocate.

Dissagree with you. See a shrink. I think it will do you the world of good.

 

[adamkungl]

Dissagree with you. See a shrink. I think it will do you the world of good.

With such a solid argument how can I argue :crazy:to the psychiatry man!