You Tell Me Why There Are Too Many Clubs In Sydney

[Sports Prophet]

8 minutes ago, Yorkshire Knight said:

Because relocation of an existing club seems more likely than the addition of a whole new club. Seeing that the latter is unlikely, it’s obviously going to take an existing club to move to a market like Perth or Brisbane. And where would that club come from? You guessed it! The market which is currently over saturated with 9 clubs 

Please tell me why relocation of an existing club would be more likely than the addition of a new club.

Actually even better, can you explain to me why the relocation of a new club is more advantageous than the addition of a new one?

[BladeHearts]

6 minutes ago, Yorkshire Knight said:

Because relocation of an existing club seems more likely than the addition of a whole new club. Seeing that the latter is unlikely, it’s obviously going to take an existing club to move to a market like Perth or Brisbane. And where would that club come from? You guessed it! The market which is currently over saturated with 9 clubs 

But the team in Perth would still be a new entity.  All that Club 9 would bring from Sydney to Perth would be a long distance sense of visceral hatred for the new, if asked who they supported it would probably be Anyone But Perth and these disaffected fans would be more likely to turn to Soccer, AFL or Union, than support Sydney 1-8.

The excellent attendance figures in Sydney show that the market is not in anyway oversaturated.  Bear in mind that Sydney has the population of Scotland or Yorkshire, so 9 clubs really isn't excessive.

[Yorkshire Knight]

Just now, Sports Prophet said:

Please tell me why relocation of an existing club would be more likely than the addition of a new club.

Actually even better, can you explain to me why the relocation of a new club is better than the addition of a new one?

I’m not saying it’s necessarily better or worse however it’s based on what the NRL have said. They’re not giving any indication that they’re open to the idea of a new club over relocation of an existing one 

[BladeHearts]

Just now, Yorkshire Knight said:

I’m not saying it’s necessarily better or worse however it’s based on what the NRL have said. They’re not giving any indication that they’re open to the idea of a new club over relocation of an existing one 

I disagree. I think what they are saying is that they are open minded to expansion from 16-18 clubs and going forward they wouldn't look to put in any new clubs in Sydney.

However, if at some point in the future one of the Sydney 9 did run into financial difficulties, which could be taken as evidence of market saturation, the price of a bail-out would potentially be relocation.

[Yorkshire Knight]

1 minute ago, BladeHearts said:

But the team in Perth would still be a new entity.  All that Club 9 would bring from Sydney to Perth would be a long distance sense of visceral hatred for the new, if asked who they supported it would probably be Anyone But Perth and these disaffected fans would be more likely to turn to Soccer, AFL or Union, than support Sydney 1-8.

The excellent attendance figures in Sydney show that the market is not in anyway oversaturated.  Bear in mind that Sydney has the population of Scotland or Yorkshire, so 9 clubs really isn't excessive.

I’m not making the argument for relocation. I’m merely reading into the words of the NRL then came to the conclusion that at this stage, relocation seems more likely than setting up a new club. 

Excellent attendance figures is a bit of a stretch. Could you name this figure? I’ve only ever seen poor crowds for most Sydney matches especially ones played at big stadiums. Manly and Sydney spring to mind 

[Sports Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Yorkshire Knight said:

I’m not saying it’s necessarily better or worse however it’s based on what the NRL have said. They’re not giving any indication that they’re open to the idea of a new club over relocation of an existing one 

I don’t think the NRL have ever qualified their preference one way over the other.

They have declared that any club requiring financial bailout would be at risk of relocation, but even that isn’t mandatory.

[Yorkshire Knight]

1 minute ago, BladeHearts said:

I disagree. I think what they are saying is that they are open minded to expansion from 16-18 clubs and going forward they wouldn't look to put in any new clubs in Sydney.

However, if at some point in the future one of the Sydney 9 did run into financial difficulties, which could be taken as evidence of market saturation, the price of a bail-out would potentially be relocation.

This nearly happened. The fact that it came close so should tell you everything 

[BladeHearts]

Just now, Yorkshire Knight said:

I’m not making the argument for relocation. I’m merely reading into the words of the NRL then came to the conclusion that at this stage, relocation seems more likely than setting up a new club. 

Excellent attendance figures is a bit of a stretch. Could you name this figure? I’ve only ever seen poor crowds for most Sydney matches especially ones played at big stadiums. Manly and Sydney spring to mind 

The figures quoted on this forum over the last few days show everyone of the Sydney 9 with an average attendance in excess of 10k, I think thats outstanding.

My football side Hearts played the first half of last season at Murrayfield, we got 33k at home v Rangers... there were still 34k empty seats in the stadium.  Was it a rubbish crowd or our biggest home league gate for 40 years?

[BladeHearts]

2 minutes ago, Yorkshire Knight said:

This nearly happened. The fact that it came close so should tell you everything 

At the end of the day any club has to be able to live within its means and wash its face and if a club was to go to the wall organically, then you can support the argument of the NRL not bailing them out, just for history to repeat itself.

But that is very different to an arbitary decision to uproot a healthy viable club and relocate them in the name of expansion.

It seems like Cronulla have sailed pretty close to the wind, but ultimately come out the other side smelling of roses.

[Sports Prophet]

38 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

But it would mean that club 9 arent competiting with clubs 1-8 for sponsors, corporates

I’m watching Brisbane v North Queensland now. The main sponsors I can make out include:

Toyota, First MAC, NRMA, Ladbrookes, Youi (referees), National Storage.

All of which are at minimum, national businesses with highest profit margins made in Sydney. So it would appear the Sydney clubs are equally competing with non Sydney clubs for commercial partners.

So it would also be right to deduce that a new Perth team would not be competing against Sydney teams 1-8 any less than Sydney club 9 would.

[Yorkshire Knight]

15 minutes ago, BladeHearts said:

The figures quoted on this forum over the last few days show everyone of the Sydney 9 with an average attendance in excess of 10k, I think thats outstanding.

My football side Hearts played the first half of last season at Murrayfield, we got 33k at home v Rangers... there were still 34k empty seats in the stadium.  Was it a rubbish crowd or our biggest home league gate for 40 years?

It’s only round one so it would be premature to draw conclusions at this stage. Looking at last year’s stats, it doesn’t paint a good picture 

[Davo5]

2 minutes ago, Yorkshire Knight said:

It’s only round one so it would be premature to draw conclusions at this stage. Looking at last year’s stats, it doesn’t paint a good picture 

Are attendances your only basis for shedding a Sydney club,surely bringing in 2 new teams is a better option than getting rid of an established one,it will certainly be cheaper in legal costs for the NRL.

[Yorkshire Knight]

5 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

Are attendances your only basis for shedding a Sydney club,surely bringing in 2 new teams is a better option than getting rid of an established one,it will certainly be cheaper in legal costs for the NRL.

I don’t know what the best course of action would be. With recent talk of moving a Sydney club, I thought this would be the most likely outcome over setting up a new club. Not one I’d prefer but if the NRL are not going to go down that route, there would need to be a relocation

[ghost crayfish]

56 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

I’m watching Brisbane v North Queensland now. The main sponsors I can make out include:

Toyota, First MAC, NRMA, Ladbrookes, Youi (referees), National Storage.

All of which are at minimum, national businesses with highest profit margins made in Sydney. So it would appear the Sydney clubs are equally competing with non Sydney clubs for commercial partners.

So it would also be right to deduce that a new Perth team would not be competing against Sydney teams 1-8 any less than Sydney club 9 would.

A less visible indicator of the impact the crowded Sydney market has on corporate support is the 3rd party player sponsorship deals. The NRL released those details last year. Brisbane and Melbourne were way out in front, the Warriors, Cowboys and even Raiders among the best of the rest, and Sydney clubs other than Souths, Penrith (who are a fair distance from the city) and Roosters all near the bottom. This is quite telling.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2018/12/13/nrl-makes-third-party-agreements-public-and-strengthens-contract-process/

[Sports Prophet]

23 minutes ago, ghost crayfish said:

A less visible indicator of the impact the crowded Sydney market has on corporate support is the 3rd party player sponsorship deals. The NRL released those details last year. Brisbane and Melbourne were way out in front, the Warriors, Cowboys and even Raiders among the best of the rest, and Sydney clubs other than Souths, Penrith (who are a fair distance from the city) and Roosters all near the bottom. This is quite telling.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2018/12/13/nrl-makes-third-party-agreements-public-and-strengthens-contract-process/

That is a very good point GC and one I hadn’t considered. 

It does paint an interesting picture... both Brisbane and Melbourne did have some hugely marketable players in 2018. I would be interested to know the number of Origin representatives at those two clubs in comparison to the rest of the clubs. That could be an outlier skewing the figures also.

Thinking about it, I don’t think your point adds weight to the argument that there are too many Sydney clubs. The only conclusion I can safely draw is that those third party arrangements would simply be split amongst the same number of players from a lower number of Sydney teams or perhaps paid to players of non Sydney clubs instead. Worse still and possibly even more likely, some of those third party payments may be lost altogether...

[Davo5]

Personally don't think there are too many teams in Sydney,ive never thought of Penrith as being in Sydney even accounting for the cities ever expanding footprint,the Dragons play some of their games in Wollongong and others take games on the road.

Maybe another consideration is the NSW governments current investment in stadia,don't think they will be too happy if teams are shipped off to Perth/ Brisband leaving those stadia under used.

[Rupert Prince]

8 hours ago, goldcoaster said:

Why should Sydney have 9 teams and south east Qld only 2? NZ only one? Perth none?

Personally I think expansion would be the best model, but existing clubs argue there aren’t enough good players available. So why should then expansion be held off because of this? If the league can only sustain 16 clubs, then relocation is the best option to ensure a broader league

Don't worry, all the best English players will be going over to Australia soon, if they (and their agents) are not planning to already. There ought soon to be plenty players to sustain a new club in Perth... English players might prefer that. They will be that much closer to the holiday destinations to the west. 

And a great benefit for the moaners is that this will create a lower level playing field between SL and the Championship, no difference to the pair of them. And gates would go up because SKY will then decide it's not worth showing it and cancel their contract and couch potatoes will go though the turnstiles.  Possibly.

Or watch the Gatland/Edwards's English RU games...

[Exiled Wiganer]

I think the idea that we lose any of our “Sydney” clubs willingly is insane. Take Penrith - it is in the Blue Mountains pretty much, a long way and millions of people between them and Easts. Easts have money, few juniors and not massive crowds, but they are in the heart of the city. The Bulldogs, Parra and Wests are massive league areas for juniors, and focal points for Pacific Islanders. Manly up north has a glorious history and its geographic spread north is huge. Souths have massive juniors, and a glorious tradition. St George/Illawarra is a long way south, and draws on a different, but league loving  market. Cronulla likewise to a lesser degree. 

We would not be watching our game in its current form without these clubs. They have already lost clubs like Norths and Newtown, and have had mergers. No more. As someone wrote, the overall population reach is greater than Scotland, and moreover League has very deep roots in these areas. I would argue that, after the previous mergers and closures, these are perfectly placed to keep the deep roots of our game healthy and attract fans and sponsors in every corner of the town.

Next time I speak with Todd, I will put him straight. 

[Sports Prophet]

4 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

It's just silly to pretend that an area of 5million people were supporting 9 clubs and those clubs arent competing with each other for sponsors, corporate etc.

If that is the case then why not assume there are even more sponsor available in Sydney for teams 10 and 11.  

The simple fact is that NRL clubs have more money from TV than their SC yet clubs in Sydney are still struggling to wash their face the obvious reason for that is the NRL pie is sliced too thinly in Sydney 

I thought I demonstrated pretty well how Sydney clubs 1-8 would equally compete for major sponsors with Sydney club 9 as they would with a new Perth club. That fact stands true and evidenced.

I can easily argue there are even more potential sponsors available for teams 10 and 12 or should I say teams 17 and 18, no matter their location. Look at all the corporates that sponsor AFL, Cricket, Rugby Union, Netball, Basketball for a start. Are they not potential sponsors for RL? What about the vast list of corporate businesses that are currently not sponsoring sports. Many of which are turning over billions (in the Sydney market alone).

There is however a major market that the Sydney clubs do not compete for and that is the existing Sydney fan base. A fan base that turns over tens of millions in revenue and over a million in turnstiles. Take away a Sydney club and this market segment contracts immediately.

[MattSantos]

9 hours ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

NRL seems to be doing fine with 9 Sydney clubs. 

On reflectiom, i agree.

The NRL in my view should be celebrating that theyve 9 teams in the Sydney area. 

Expansion is great, have the confidence that there is enough talent to spread around. Own it, push it that rugby league is ace. Proper *ace

 

*CasVegas 2008

[anjado]

There isn't a problem with the number of Sydney clubs, the problems that currently arise can be traced back to the culling of clubs in 2000. To be in the competition post 2000 you had to meet a certain criteria this criteria was massively rigged to favour Eastern Suburbs. The criteria didn't take into consideration junior participation rates and crowds were ranked from 1996 which is when the Roosters drew three big crowds for Monday night games solely due to a promotion where you could get free tickets from McDonalds. If you take out those three games and the match against Souths their crowd average was 10,811 which isn't terrible but they also started that season off by winning their first 10 games and it was the best chance they had of premiership success for 15 years.

The Roosters crowd average from 1988 to 1999 was 9,143 if you discount the McDonalds give away in 1996. Even then the Roosters were constantly accused of lying about crowd numbers especially in the late 90's.  They also played in the best stadium in the competition throughout those years but couldn't draw crowds without gimmicks which they still have now with the Anzac day match and opening the season against Souths.

If the criteria were honest and fair they would have been one of the first clubs to make way or be forced to merge.

If they were smart about the criteria and didn't allow clubs to decide for themselves it would have been a lot better.

But instead we got one merger which makes little sense geographically, one merger which was a take over which should have been a relocation and one merger between two clubs which made up the fiercest rivalry in the game so only lasted two years.

If they did it properly this is how it should have looked

 

Easts and Balmain merge (Sydney Tigers) - This to me was a no brainer purely due to geography, the distance between Leichardt and Campbelltown is roughly 30 miles. The distance from Leichardt to Allianz stadium is only 5 miles.  Balmain have always had a decent junior base which would have improved the Roosters and they drew solid crowds they averaged over 10,000 people to games once they moved back to Leichardt in 1997 to their demise in 1999 despite having a team with no real stars in it. In 1995/96 they moved to Parramatta which is twice as far from Leichardt and drew low crowds. The problem was the people in charge of Balmain and the NRL considered Balmain a Western Sydney club which was daft because Balmain is now 100% part of the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney and if they looked at demographics and house prices they would have realised this was where it was heading.

 

Canterbury and Western Suburbs merge (South-West Bulldogs) - This was another no brainer Canterbury throughout the late 90's were considering relocating to Liverpool which is next to Campbelltown. If they merged the clubs and went ahead with those plans it would have sewn up the south west of Sydney.

 

St George and Illawarra - These clubs still merge but are more based in Wollongong whilst playing a couple of games in Sydney.

 

North Sydney relocate to the Central Coast - The Bears were massively screwed by unprecedented rain in 1998 which delayed the building of their stadium in Gosford by 12 months. The Central Coast has a huge junior base and the Bears would have become a force in the competition had they been allowed to remain like St George they should have played a handful of games back at North Sydney.

 

Souths and Cronulla (South Sydney Sharks) - This is the toughest merger because Souths are a big club with enormous history and Cronulla were the best team in the NRL in 1999. But geographically it makes sense especially if St George relocate it would give this club all of Southern Sydney.  Cronulla are usually the first team to be brought up when it comes to relocation which is a shame but if they had merged with Souths it would have made both clubs stronger without losing too much.

Stand alone clubs

Manly - They get all of the northern peninsula and most of North Sydney same as currently but with less resentment because the Bears still exist.

Parramatta - Basically a city in itself in all but name strong junior base and fan base when successful.

Penrith - Enormous junior base not really close enough to any other team to viably merge except Parramatta who were strong enough to stand alone.

 

That would have made 6 full time Sydney clubs with two part time Sydney clubs in geographically logical locations.

So basically here are the regions with the populations or catchment area for each region.

Central Sydney/ Inner West (Easts/Balmain) - 420,000

Southern Sydney (Souths/Cronulla) - 330,000

South West Sydney (Canterbury/Wests) - 580,000

Central Coast (Norths) - 395,000

Wollongong (St George/Illawarra) - 428,000

Manly - 365,000

Parramatta - 500,000

Penrith - 370,000

 

That makes complete sense to me and would have put the game in a far stronger position and ensuring that no Sydney team would have ever had to fully relocate again.  Which would have allowed for proper expansion. I have no doubt that if this idea was followed instead of bowing to Nick Politis and James Packer the game would be far bigger than it is now.  Everyone would still have had a team to follow geographically Sydney and greater Sydney would have been covered and dominate the sporting landscape. It would have left room for 10 teams outside of NSW to come in and the NSW clubs would all have allowed it because they would have been in a stronger position.

[rlno1]

On 3/22/2019 at 9:12 AM, Sports Prophet said:

There has long been comments that there are too many Sydney teams in the NRL.

I am actually interested in this opinion. What is that opinion based on?

I don’t think there are too many teams in Sydney at all. The current number of clubs in Sydney support the current number of Sydney RL supporters. It’s not like moving a club back to NSW Cup or relocating them will increase the number of supporters in Sydney.

Nor is it like the number of teams in Sydney prevents the NRL expanding the competition to a new location.

I am a little baffled...

Anyone care to enlighten me?

 

It's usually based on media rumours....then people follow these stories like sheep guessing who should move not believing clubs can turn things around and grow where they are as South Sydney did and until today Cronulla were in the gun.

[rlno1]

22 hours ago, Yorkshire Knight said:

What’s the average attendance for Sydney clubs compared to the rest? 

Clubs in Sydney last year averaged 13,509 for 90 games

Outside of Sydney for 90 games the average was 14,881

This excluded Brisbane's 12 games who averaged 31,000 per game.

[rlno1]

18 hours ago, BladeHearts said:

Just because some areas are under-represented does not in itself mean that Sydney is over-represented.

I would argue that at present Sydney has exactly the right number of teams and this will continue to be the case unless any of these sides become financially unviable, which seems to be what the NRL is saying.

The key is expanding into those areas lacking representation, where there is potential to enhance the competition as a whole.  I think everyone would agree that Perth is a no-brainer and Brisbane2 is also a strong contender.  If the enthusiasm, crowds and financial backing are in place it would also be great to have a side in Adelaide, which would allow the NRL to truly merit the N in its title.

Longer term additional sides in NZ would be great, but again any new side needs to show that it could merit a place in the NRL.

The beauty of any league which uses a Grand Final system, is that you are not constrained size wise by the numbers of a home and away fixture list i.e. you could go to 25 teams and still play just 24 fixtures or alternatively split into conferences.

RL across the globe will only grow by having more teams and by being played in more places, I would also argue that equality of competition is probably more important than overall quality.

If every match in a league finishes 20-19 will people complain that the quality was a bit iffy and by the same token are people ever happy watching a stellar Kangaroos side win 95-0?

There is also an argument that if overall quality drops it serves to make the stars of the game shine brighter as it magnifies their superior skills.

 

Infact Sydney is missing one team, the North Sydney Bears who should be brought back feeding the north and Central Coast as they use to. This area is a huge black hole for rugby league.

[Yorkshire Knight]

11 minutes ago, rlno1 said:

Clubs in Sydney last year averaged 13,509 for 90 games

Outside of Sydney for 90 games the average was 14,881

This excluded Brisbane's 12 games who averaged 31,000 per game.

Even though Brisbane in terms of attendance is an anomaly in comparison to the rest of the league, you still gotta include them in the outside of Sydney average. If not then you also gotta exclude the highest Sydney club’s attendance as I’d imagine their numbers would be inflating the average