Why do merged clubs perform so poorly?

[forby]

Which 6 stay and which 3 move?

 

[The Axe of Druss]

Because mergers are a terrible idea which hasn’t been done in any other sport and for good reason. St George Illawarra is the only one that has made sense and that is a takeover rather than a merger. There should have just been relocations to the areas that were killed off i.e Perth, Adelaide, 2nd Brisbane, GC etc could have bought the Sydney clubs that were failing and just moved them there.

AFL merged Fitzroy and Brisbane to great success

 

[Colk]

Looking at memberships, financials growth, supporter base etc definitely Manly and Cronulla. Dragons and Tigers have struggled financially recently so the third would be a toss up between them.

 

[Colk]

AFL merged Fitzroy and Brisbane to great success

Brisbane took over Fitzroy -it wasn’t a merger. Tbf that’s what should have happened with the Sydney clubs after the war. They would have kept their idenTory and had the opportunity to grow their brand more they could’ve ever imagined in a congested Sydney market

 

[The Rosco]

A bit of trivia. ...through the short era of the SG/ I and WT mergers the mighty stand alone Dogs..Eels and Souths have collected 3 spoons each ...Knights 4 and the Panthers 2 while the two mergers none....not one!. Dogs ...Souths and the Knights have won no more premierships during that time than WT or the Dragons. ..Eels less than zilch and Pennies only now one more.
Just curious...how come stand alone clubs have collected SO MANY spoons over the same period of time their fans claim such overwhelming success as compared to the mergers ? Or doesn't repeat offender stone fkn' motherless last count as a metric on the superiority / heart /know what you stand for barometer ?

Listen mate.
Nobody appreciates common sense here.
The answer is that merged clubs are no good.
A collection of wooden spoons and zero premierships in that time period means nothing. The important thing is parra.
I stopped taking this garbage seriously when that merkin said that Wests and doggies should have merged.
Go Fxxx yourself pal.

 

[LeagueXIII]

And how many people are you willing to lose from this sport to do that? 100k, 200K, more?

I hear its big in Adelaide though.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Brisbane took over Fitzroy -it wasn’t a merger. Tbf happened with the Sydney clubs after the war. They would have kept their idenTory and had the opportunity to grow their brand more they could’ve ever imagined in a congested Sydney market

If you are being sober about it and look at things like revenue, memberships, sponsorship, national profile, supporter base probably 6 tops. The other 3 should be relocated (and would strongly benefit them)

And how many people are you willing to lose from this sport to do that? 100k, 200K, more?

I hear its big in Adelaide though.

 

[Colk]

Firstly there is that refrain again - can’t put a team because nobody would watch it. It’s a fascinating case of cognitive dissonance to me- why do you like Rugby League? Why couldn’t be there other people like you in Perth and Adelaide who may find it appealing

 

[The_Frog]

Nice deflection from the habitual spooner point....so how DID your supposed powerhouse club come stone fkn motherless last twice during the same period of time? Any theories you can blame on something?

Obviously they were anything but a powerhouse club in 2001 and 2007 (from 1998 to 2015 really with a few blips of success in there, things have improved only since then, I'd put it down to the renewed focus on player development). They did however win a premiership within 2 years of one of them. I've never claimed Panthers to have been a powerhouse club over the entire NRL period, really its only been the last two seasons they could claim that. You're making that one up.

Even the Roosters have got the spoon twice in the NRL era, same as us.

 

[Perth Red]

And how many people are you willing to lose from this sport to do that? 100k, 200K, more?

I hear its big in Adelaide though.

Imagine if the sport had taken that attitude a hundred years ago. You'd all be union or afl fans now!

 

[Colk]

Secondly, you know the idea of markets rights? There has been 6 clubs that have died in the past 40 years (5 considering Souths were resuscitated) All of those clubs deaths, outside of Newtown, have coincided with the introduction of teams outside of Sydney; most particularly Brisbane and Warriors. This meant that obviously meant that with bigger wages and expenses which really in hindsight. That in itself tells you that there were too many clubs in Sydney for a semi-national competition. It is sad and the NSWRL/ARL etc should have done more to preserve those legacies by moving them elsewhere but the Rationalisation was inevitable

Even now, after all that, and being given $13 million every year, how many would have significantly improved their sponsorship, membership, gate receipts, supporter base etc. For example how many Sydney sides could realistically get to 500k supporters, 40-50k members. Become real powerhouses

Imagine if the sport had taken that attitude a hundred years ago. You'd all be union or afl fans now!

Exactly. Another thing- in the last 25 years, the total amount of viewers and supporters has gone up not gone down despite the deaths of those Sydney teams. The same thing would happen if some were relocated

 

[BunniesMan]

FYI I don’t wish for any team to die whether they were in Sydney or not; however in a national competition you can’t have 12 Sydney sides. The destruction of Perth, Adelaide or a 2nd Brisbane were more damaging in terms of the money lost to the game then any Sydney side

Really a large majority of the current clubs in Sydney owe their existence to Brisbane, Warriors and Melbourne and the large TV contracts that followed as a result

The AFL grew to having billion dollar contracts with only one merger, one relocation and no clubs folding. The NRL could have done the same. The less wealthy AFL clubs running on fumes held on in that period in the 90s as the old fashioned product based on primarily gate takings transformed into what is now primarily a TV product (and much richer for it). The NRL went through the same transformational period at basically the same time, but lost 4 foundational clubs, almost lost a 5th, as well as the Dragons.

The AFL isn't magic, what it managed to do was not one of a kind or impossible to replicate. The NRL could have done the same if it didn't panic in the 90s.

 

[Valheru]

Obviously they were anything but a powerhouse club in 2001 and 2007 (from 1998 to 2015 really with a few blips of success in there, things have improved only since then, I'd put it down to the renewed focus on player development). They did however win a premiership within 2 years of one of them. I've never claimed Panthers to have been a powerhouse club over the entire NRL period, really its only been the last two seasons they could claim that. You're making that one up.

Even the Roosters have got the spoon twice in the NRL era, same as us.

We have only got it once in 2009 and that is our only one since 1966. We did come 2nd last in 2016 and 2006 which to me is as good as a spoon.

Not sure why people get so fussed over the spoon. Someone has to finish last and it can be better to completely bottom out at times rather than finish 11th or 12th and fool yourself in to thinking you were competitive. As far as I am concerned, the bottom four are as bad as each other and where teams finish within that is irrelevant.

 

[Perth Red]

The AFL grew to having billion dollar contracts with only one merger, one relocation and no clubs folding. The NRL could have done the same. The less wealthy AFL clubs running on fumes held on in that period in the 90s as the old fashioned product based on primarily gate takings transformed into what is now primarily a TV product (and much richer for it). The NRL went through the same transformational period at basically the same time, but lost 4 foundational clubs, almost lost a 5th, as well as the Dragons.

The AFL isn't magic, what it managed to do was not one of a kind or impossible to replicate. The NRL could have done the same if it didn't panic in the 90s.

There is a couple of advantages they have had though. 1. Central stadiums policy. This has meant their suburban identity clubs where able to become city wide appealing clubs and all play out of large quality stadia with big crowds that are well serviced. 2. Grants based on need. This has meant even the smaller poorer clubs have been able to grow and invest in things like customer growth. 3. A refusal to hold back expansion because of struggling clubs. AFL could have easily not expanded and spent all their money on existing clubs who were struggling but chose not to. This in return has given them a strong national footprint and a revenue base that goes along with that. Despite all that I am sure the AFL would be happy to see certain clubs relocate, they tried to get someone to go to GC rather than start a new club and I'm sure they'd be happy to see one of them move to Tassie.

 

[Munky]

We have only got it once in 2009 and that is our only one since 1966. We did come 2nd last in 2016 and 2006 which to me is as good as a spoon.

Not sure why people get so fussed over the spoon. Someone has to finish last and it can be better to completely bottom out at times rather than finish 11th or 12th and fool yourself in to thinking you were competitive. As far as I am concerned, the bottom four are as bad as each other and where teams finish within that is irrelevant.

In 07 Penrith got the spoon with 8 wins for 24 games, with a -68 differential while the 2020 Broncos went 3/20 with a -356.

In 2021, a 10 win team was in the finals.

Not sure what my point is, maybe I just wanted to point out how hilarious it is the Broncos let go of a coach who was an intercept from a premiership just a year after swapping him for a bloke who turned them into one of the worst teams ever seen.

 

[Colk]

The AFL grew to having billion dollar contracts with only one merger, one relocation and no clubs folding. The NRL could have done the same. The less wealthy AFL clubs running on fumes held on in that period in the 90s as the old fashioned product based on primarily gate takings transformed into what is now primarily a TV product (and much richer for it). The NRL went through the same transformational period at basically the same time, but lost 4 foundational clubs, almost lost a 5th, as well as the Dragons.

The AFL isn't magic, what it managed to do was not one of a kind or impossible to replicate. The NRL could have done the same if it didn't panic in the 90s.

Part of my response was addressed by Perth Red but there a key few differences

The first part of the problem can go back to the expansion of the original Sydney competition and the decision to expand to the outer suburbs. Nothing against those clubs per se but soon as you move away from the centre, the further teams have to travel home and away and the more you have to pay for stadium redevelopment and the facilities get worse. I’m not picking on the Sea Eagles, Panthers or Sharks but it is no coincidence that they have the least amount of supporters, their stadiums are probably the worst in all of Sydney and the gate receipts for games involving them are the least in the comp. Penrith can grow fortunately but what is the future for Cronulla and Manly - where is their future growth going to come from if they remain based where they are? Even with redevelopments, are people all the way out in Western Sydney going to travel to Brookvale Oval and what about Manly fans. Their location inhibits their growth You only have to contrast that to the AFL - all of their teams are in the centre of the city.

The second part is we still had too many sides in NSW. In 1994, we had 13 (14 if you want to include Canberra) You had less room to manoeuvre to add the five other markets they actually did Perth, Adelaide, 2nd Brisbane, North Qld and NZ. So we would still have had to cut a little deeper but it still would have only been 3 relocations which I inked is perfectly manageable

The third part is we expanded way too quickly over two years and then we had to contract too quickly. The problem with the war is that it didn’t do anything - there was no strategy with Sydney to make those clubs bigger and you didn’t have a national competition which reduces the amount of money you can earn

 

[Marshall_magic]

A bit of trivia. ...through the short era of the SG/ I and WT mergers the mighty stand alone Dogs..Eels and Souths have collected 3 spoons each ...Knights 4 and the Panthers 2 while the two mergers none....not one!. Dogs ...Souths and the Knights have won no more premierships during that time than WT or the Dragons. ..Eels less than zilch and Pennies only now one more.
Just curious...how come stand alone clubs have collected SO MANY spoons over the same period of time their fans claim such overwhelming success as compared to the mergers ? Or doesn't repeat offender stone fkn' motherless last count as a metric on the superiority / heart /know what you stand for barometer ?

so what you’re saying is we are always a little but shit but never completely shit?

 

[BunniesMan]

There is a couple of advantages they have had though. 1. Central stadiums policy. This has meant their suburban identity clubs where able to become city wide appealing clubs and all play out of large quality stadia with big crowds that are well serviced. 2. Grants based on need. This has meant even the smaller poorer clubs have been able to grow and invest in things like customer growth. 3. A refusal to hold back expansion because of struggling clubs. AFL could have easily not expanded and spent all their money on existing clubs who were struggling but chose not to. This in return has given them a strong national footprint and a revenue base that goes along with that. Despite all that I am sure the AFL would be happy to see certain clubs relocate, they tried to get someone to go to GC rather than start a new club and I'm sure they'd be happy to see one of them move to Tassie.

You're largely right here but that doesn't contradict my underlying point. A lot of people argue all the Sydney clubs that died were doomed and there was no getting around that without merging at least or folding. I'm saying the AFL proves you could maintain almost all your heritage while also modernising, it doesn't have to be either/or.

 

[Colk]

Point taken. I agree in most parts. I think you might have had to relocate a few more than the AFL because RL’s issues were a bit deeper particularly with crowd attendances but it should have been better navigated.

Now we have neither. We have lost history but we don’t have a national competition

 

[The_Frog]

We have only got it once in 2009 and that is our only one since 1966. We did come 2nd last in 2016 and 2006 which to me is as good as a spoon.

Yeah my bad I was thinking you came last in '16 as well.