Which Sydney club must go

[Tommygilf]

12 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

A fundamental weakness of such arguments, certainly in the short-term, is that the supporters of a culled club instantly turn into potential supporters of another club that remains. Experience surely proves otherwise.

There may crtainly be an argument for fewer Sydney clubs in the NRL but is culling the only mechanism in which to achieve this? For exapmle I have never really understood the opposition to new clubs joing the NRL on merit whilst another departs - promotion and relegation, in other words. Australia is a properly meritocratic country after all so closed shops wouldn't be a part of the national mentality.

Exactly, you either have to take the Football League route and have a second division, or the American route and split into regional conferences.

[Hela Wigmen]

58 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

At the end of the day population doesn't mean very much if there's not enough demand for a product, and in Sydney's case, there's way more supply than demand for NRL clubs.

I mean Sydney is supposedly the capital of RL right, well in the capital of RL on average only one of the clubs is profitable, none has over 30k members and none average over 20k attendance, and there isn't enough public or private money to support the clubs needs. For the supposed capital of RL those are bloody dismal facts.

If the Sydney clubs were like the AFL clubs in Melbourne then you might have a point, but not only are they not, but the AFL has been trying to further rationalise Melbourne for the last 20 years as well.

So we want to move teams to different places based purely off their attendances? I’m glad the NRL aren’t in charge over here then.

There’s a hell of a lot more to a club than attendances and if that’s is such a big bear for Australia, isn’t the question “why aren’t clubs getting higher attendances anymore?” rather than moving a team, dropping them thousands of miles away and alienating thousands of Rugby League fans? 

[Tommygilf]

In Sydney as well there has to be the question of the use of ANZ stadium. As far as I can tell, a number of clubs have upped sticks and moved there and now seem a bit soulless as a result. 

[Mr Plow]

7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The reasons there isnt P+R in the NRL, and there never will be are obvious. It would destroy the game over there, its a ridiculous idea. 

 There are too many teams in Sydney, its a ridiculously saturated market that it can't support the number of clubs it has. 

The only sensible option would be to have conferences. How you would do that I’m unsure with most teams based in NSW/ that corner of Australia.

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The reasons there isnt P+R in the NRL, and there never will be are obvious. It would destroy the game over there, its a ridiculous idea. 

 There are too many teams in Sydney, its a ridiculously saturated market that it can't support the number of clubs it has. 

What criteria would there be for getting rid of clubs in a saturated market that could be applied though? For every point in favour of one comes a counter against it.

Facilities - any team who the NRL deem as having below par facilities could move to either ANZ, Parra or the new SFS (and have done).

Area - Manly get a pass as the only side betweeen Sydney and Newcastle. All the rest have their own niches and overlaps that make lines blurred.

Finances - Roosters get out of Jail free card and something that many of the rest are universally weak on.

Sydney may be saturated, but so it should be. Its the Rugby League capital of the world. 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Mr Plow said:

The only sensible option would be to have conferences. How you would do that I’m unsure with most teams based in NSW/ that corner of Australia.

True, it would be unfair to have a Sydney City conference and a "the rest" conference. 

[Toby Chopra]

25 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

There’s a hell of a lot more to a club than attendances and if that’s is such a big bear for Australia, isn’t the question “why aren’t clubs getting higher attendances anymore?” rather than moving a team, dropping them thousands of miles away and alienating thousands of Rugby League fans? 

Indeed there is more to a club than attendances, but in a closed shop league like the NRL attendances, or maybe revenue generation more broadly, has to be monitored to see if a team really is earning its place in the competition. Remember it's the place in the competition that is a large part of the draw for fans, so it's right to see that teams are making the most of that lucrative place. Maybe there are better options who can make more of the opportunity. 

Of course here, we have a mechanism for that: P&R.

In the NRL, from what others have written, it sounds like some teams are becoming more and more marginal in their community, but unlike here they won't be replaced by teams who are doing a better job. 

What still seems in question though, is whether there actually are any better options than out there. Would a team in Perth automatically generate more revenue than Cronulla or Manly? I don't think that's a given at all. 

[The Great Dane]

27 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

So we want to move teams to different places based purely off their attendances? I’m glad the NRL aren’t in charge over here then.

No, not just because of attendances, but because for the most part they're broke and need to be supported by the NRL to continue exist. 

Here's the thing though, their need for support has lead to a situation where the NRL is annually investing $117mil in grants alone just on the 9 clubs in Sydney. Having that much invested in Sydney has lead to the NRL being reluctant to expand or invest resources in other places because they can't really afford it, which has stunted the growth of both the sport and the competition everywhere else.

There's no reason why Sydney needs nine clubs in the NRL, and the only reason that the clubs are failing in Sydney is because the support base has been split to many times. In other words, instead of having 4-5 strong clubs, we've got 9 weak ones, and we're paying for it dearly.

On top of that the NRL couldn't afford to invest that kind of money and those resources into just 9 clubs before COVID-19 screwed everything up, but definitely can't afford it now, so something has gotta give.

[Toby Chopra]

7 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

No, not just because of attendances, but because for the most part they're broke and need to be supported by the NRL to continue exist. 

Here's the thing though, their need for support has lead to a situation where the NRL is annually investing $117mil in grants alone just on the 9 clubs in Sydney. Having that much invested in Sydney has lead to the NRL being reluctant to expand or invest resources in other places because they can't really afford it, which has stunted the growth of both the sport and the competition everywhere else.

There's no reason why Sydney needs nine clubs in the NRL, and the only reason that the clubs are failing in Sydney is because the support base has been split to many times. In other words, instead of having 4-5 strong clubs, we've got 9 weak ones, and we're paying for it dearly.

On top of that the NRL couldn't afford to invest that kind of money and those resources into just 9 clubs before COVID-19 screwed everything up, but definitely can't afford it now, so something has gotta give.

But do you know for sure you could trade 9 weak clubs for 4-5 strong ones? Most existing fans of the culled clubs wouldn't transfer to the survivors. And the survivors would have to work twice as hard to generate "new" fans as they'll have to generate those the culled clubs would have engaged, as well as their own. They won't just fall into their lap. You might just end up with 5 weak clubs in Sydney and 4 weak expansion clubs elsewhere. 

[The Great Dane]

36 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

In the NRL, from what others have written, it sounds like some teams are becoming more and more marginal in their community, but unlike here they won't be replaced by teams who are doing a better job. 

Not only are they preventing somebody that would do a better job from taking their place, but they are expecting that the rest of the competition and RL establishment in this country will prop them up so that they can continue to exist as they do.

Some of them outright refuse to change at all, Manly is a great example of this. North Sydney is one of the most lucrative markets in the country, but they utterly refuse to try and grow outside of the Northern Beaches in any meaningful manner.

36 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

What still seems in question though, is whether there actually are any better options than out there. Would a team in Perth automatically generate more revenue than Cronulla or Manly? I don't think that's a given at all. 

There is no question.

You could take any of the smaller Sydney teams and replace them with a club from Brisbane, Perth, and maybe even Adelaide or NZ, and the replacement club would be at least as big, if not bigger, and they'd add more value to broadcasting rights and sponsorship dollars.

If you replaced them with a club from Brisbane it'd definitely be much bigger from the get go.

[The Great Dane]

10 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

But do you know for sure you could trade 9 weak clubs for 4-5 strong ones? Most existing fans of the culled clubs wouldn't transfer to the survivors. And the survivors would have to work twice as hard to generate "new" fans as they'll have to generate those the culled clubs would have engaged, as well as their own. They won't just fall into their lap. You might just end up with 5 weak clubs in Sydney and 4 weak expansion clubs elsewhere. 

It's been done by dozens of sports across the world, including by RL in Australia (Annandale and Glebe, or Brisbane after the Broncos entered the NSWRL, being the best examples).

It's not impossible, it's not even that hard to do if you've got the money and will to do it.

Also it won't be that hard for the "survivors" to engage areas that have lost a team because A. most of them already cover that area to some degree or have before, and B. if you did it right the old clubs would continue to exist as they do now, they'd just be playing in the NSW Cup or another second tier competition instead of in the NRL.

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

There's a massive difference between could and should.

Sure the EPL probably could support more teams in London, that doesn't mean that they should. 

You don’t know how football in England works do you. 

[Blind side johnny]

34 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

On top of that the NRL couldn't afford to invest that kind of money and those resources into just 9 clubs before COVID-19 screwed everything up, but definitely can't afford it now, so something has gotta give.

I am fairly ignorant about the funding situation in the NRL but where does the governing body's money come from in the first instance?

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

True, it would be unfair to have a Sydney City conference and a "the rest" conference. 

Yet when how to accommodate more foreign teams in SL has been discussed in past threads that very same model (in the form of a Heartland division and "the rest" division has been treated seriously!

[Eddie]

16 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Yet when how to accommodate more foreign teams in SL has been discussed in past threads that very same model (in the form of a Heartland division and "the rest" division has been treated seriously!

Who has treated that proposition seriously?

[Hela Wigmen]

Rugby League should be played on pitches, not in the stands or on balance sheets.

Sydney has nine clubs and NSW as a whole and on a smaller scale, Sydney, is the games heartlands in Australia, therefore, it is vital that Sydney and NSW keeps its stranglehold on its heartlands when there are other sports vying for the same area/city. While growing the game in Queensland and further afield holds obvious importance, the heartlands clubs are vital to the game. The “less is more” strategy seems baseless and I’m yet to see any genuine proof that the game would be better off with fewer clubs from the Sydney area. 

If clubs are loss making and/or suffering a drop in attendance over a sustained period of 5, 10, 15 years, the answer isn’t dissolving a club or moving it to the other end of the country. You surely seek out why these things are happening and adjust accordingly. 

 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

If any team can play in ANZ, Parra or the SFS why do you need 9?

Perhaps the finances being universally weak is to do with the fact their markets overlap and they are competing against each other for these resources  

Totally agree, but that doesn't make a case for any single club over any other.

[Big Picture]

21 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Who has treated that proposition seriously?

I remember seeing it suggested seriously by various posters in those threads.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

Then it doesnt really matter does it. Pick them at random. If there is no difference between them it doesnt matter which you pick

You can't just do that with people's teams though can you. And as I put originally, what is a negative for 1 club ie facilities for Manly and a plus for another ie Bulldogs at ANZ can be countered by location ie the entirety of Sydney north of the harbour to Newcastle vs the inner West. 

I'm sure there's a way of finding out what is each teams appropriate level is in a hugely popular sport with a large number of teams...

[fairfolly]

Does anybody have any idea how many of the Balmain Tigers immediately jumped to support the Wests Tigers when they merged. I would hazard a guess as not very many. I know one of Balmains best known supporters who had supported them basically all his life, Laurie Nicholls, the guy who used to lead the Aussies out in the tours in the U.K. with his vest on in whatever the weather,swore he would never watch his beloved Balmain ever again when they merged.

I do believe he eventually relented after several years and was persuaded to go again by his great friend Artie Beetson.How long he carried on though I would not know.I believe he actually died around 20 years ago now .

[Blind side johnny]

2 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Rugby League should be played on pitches, not in the stands or on balance sheets.

Sydney has nine clubs and NSW as a whole and on a smaller scale, Sydney, is the games heartlands in Australia, therefore, it is vital that Sydney and NSW keeps its stranglehold on its heartlands when there are other sports vying for the same area/city. While growing the game in Queensland and further afield holds obvious importance, the heartlands clubs are vital to the game. The “less is more” strategy seems baseless and I’m yet to see any genuine proof that the game would be better off with fewer clubs from the Sydney area. 

If clubs are loss making and/or suffering a drop in attendance over a sustained period of 5, 10, 15 years, the answer isn’t dissolving a club or moving it to the other end of the country. You surely seek out why these things are happening and adjust accordingly. 

 

Sorry but you need to research your history of RL a bit more closely before making such assertions. Senior RL has always been based upon the abilities of clubs to pay their way,  one significant difference with RU which led to the split in 1895. Many "famous" clubs of their day (Tyldesley, Manningham, Liversedge, Stockport etc) folded or changed codes because they could no longer afford to compete in the NU despite their early levels of success.

Harsh though this may be it was one of the singular things that allowed the NU/RL to develop its own unique character.

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

I'm a bit confused at what you are saying here?

If we can choose between them for appropriate reasons we do so.

If we cant it doesnt matter which ones we choose.

 

It matters to the fans of those clubs, especially when there are no standout "weak clubs".

[Tommygilf]

13 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

It doesnt really. 

You could pick any of the 9 and come up with fantastic, unarguable reasons why they should be the one to make way, the fans would no more accept that than a random choice. Their reaction would be exactly the same. 

They would be absolutely arguable on the basis they apply to most of the other 9.

Do you not like people or something?

[Blind side johnny]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

They would be absolutely arguable on the basis they apply to most of the other 9.

Do you not like people or something?

You are learning, slowly, TG.   

[eal]

If you cull teams you have to be willing to accept that you are culling supporters also. I am a Sydney Roosters fan, if they are culled I stop supporting a team, I am not going to suddenly support the Central Coast Roosters or the Southeastern Rooster-Rabbits. Yes there are probably too many Sydney teams for a modern-day competition, but sometimes you work with the hand history has dealt you. If a team falls over financially on its own you could argue for not saving it but to actively cull a Sydney team is madness and just brings the game back to the dark days of the late 90s.