Loudstrat
Coach
- Messages
- 15,224
Seriously, the game is bigger than any one club. That said, we simply dont have a club that doesnt contribute politively to the game.
Much argument is given to the possibility of moving the chess pieces, either by relocation, or replacement. Replacement isnt an option unless a club folds - which is not likely to happen in the forseeable future. Clubs with traditional financial problems have moved to shore themselves up, either by private ownership (Knights, Souths, Warriors, Manly), or by a reworking of their financial base (Cronulla, Melbourne). Cronulla and Souths used to be clubs that ran on a small budget, and survived without never becoming a powerhouse. The Salary Cap, plus their own measures, now allows them to compete. The new NRL grants help further. So a financial death for any club is less of a possibility now than it was.
Dont forget that, apart from the Super League war and its effects, only one club has folded since the Great Depression - Newtown - that didnt have another one spring up in its place for the following season.
As far as relocation is concerned - the only possible one was the Bears to Gosford. No other one is possible for two reasons. Firstly, the identity of one club is not acceptable to people in its new location. Secondly, no new location exists to make such a move more profitable. The only spare suitable ground in a relocation area is in Perth anyway.
A third option is a merger. There are no suitable mergers to make anyway. The Northern Eagles was a disaster because the two merged entities hated each other, and a marketable brand could not be created that represented both parent clubs.
The Wests Tigers did create a very marketable brand that kept the colloquial name of one parent (Wests) and the mascot of the other (Tigers). Plus both clubs had a common colour - black.
St George and Illawarra had the same colours, and the Steelers were on the ropes anyway. They were happy to look like St George and be called the Dragons, but they got 6 games a year at home, and all the spinoffs from having the football operations including players, coaching staff and home ground located there, not to mention the consolidation of one of the great junior nurseries under one strong club.
Those calling for a reduction of Sydney clubs forget that the average population that the 8 1/2 clubs there serve is around 550 000. Only Brisbane serves a bigger population in a League stronghold. Thats why there has always been a Sydney team in every grand final bar one.
The presence of these clubs are the foundation of the NRL. That is why Sydneysiders are more likely to attend an NRL game on a per head of population basis than any other state capital.
It might be a nice feel good feeling of having the NRL de-centralised, but the benefits economically are arguable, and the economic pressures to bring it around are simply not there.
Much argument is given to the possibility of moving the chess pieces, either by relocation, or replacement. Replacement isnt an option unless a club folds - which is not likely to happen in the forseeable future. Clubs with traditional financial problems have moved to shore themselves up, either by private ownership (Knights, Souths, Warriors, Manly), or by a reworking of their financial base (Cronulla, Melbourne). Cronulla and Souths used to be clubs that ran on a small budget, and survived without never becoming a powerhouse. The Salary Cap, plus their own measures, now allows them to compete. The new NRL grants help further. So a financial death for any club is less of a possibility now than it was.
Dont forget that, apart from the Super League war and its effects, only one club has folded since the Great Depression - Newtown - that didnt have another one spring up in its place for the following season.
As far as relocation is concerned - the only possible one was the Bears to Gosford. No other one is possible for two reasons. Firstly, the identity of one club is not acceptable to people in its new location. Secondly, no new location exists to make such a move more profitable. The only spare suitable ground in a relocation area is in Perth anyway.
A third option is a merger. There are no suitable mergers to make anyway. The Northern Eagles was a disaster because the two merged entities hated each other, and a marketable brand could not be created that represented both parent clubs.
The Wests Tigers did create a very marketable brand that kept the colloquial name of one parent (Wests) and the mascot of the other (Tigers). Plus both clubs had a common colour - black.
St George and Illawarra had the same colours, and the Steelers were on the ropes anyway. They were happy to look like St George and be called the Dragons, but they got 6 games a year at home, and all the spinoffs from having the football operations including players, coaching staff and home ground located there, not to mention the consolidation of one of the great junior nurseries under one strong club.
Those calling for a reduction of Sydney clubs forget that the average population that the 8 1/2 clubs there serve is around 550 000. Only Brisbane serves a bigger population in a League stronghold. Thats why there has always been a Sydney team in every grand final bar one.
The presence of these clubs are the foundation of the NRL. That is why Sydneysiders are more likely to attend an NRL game on a per head of population basis than any other state capital.
It might be a nice feel good feeling of having the NRL de-centralised, but the benefits economically are arguable, and the economic pressures to bring it around are simply not there.
