Which Sydney club must go

[rlno1]

17 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

The attendances for the Challenge Cup are decreasing. While still our second biggest attendance of the year, it is no longer attended as well as it was in the past. 

 

Same as the FA Cup.

Wembley has lost it's aura which hasn't helped.

[rlno1]

On 01/04/2020 at 04:09, Martyn Sadler said:

If we keep doing the same thing over and over, we won't expand our revenues. They are far more likely to decline.

What I think the game needs is a strategic vision that recognises the need to expand and gives a pathway whereby it is possible to do it.

My view is that in the long term a league of only twelve clubs will gradually lose its appeal. The A-League in Australia has discovered that.

Ultimately I think that 16 clubs is probably the minimum number needed to avoid that problem.

That doesn't mean there should be 30 fixtures. A league could be Conference based and would benefit by being so.

Before we go on this slash and burning of clubs, shouldn't we see where the digital media goes. We don't need clubs killed off we need to grow the broadcast deal that is the key. Stop selling out to News Ltd.

[rlno1]

15 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

StG, Manly, Cronulla and Wests are probably the ones you would look at first if we were losing any

Which is really 6 clubs. I can tell you it would do more damage then good.

[rlno1]

14 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

Just take the Storm's fan base, and that is roughly one and a half new fans for every old Bears fan that was lost to the sport.

What about all the supporters that were lost from St.George, Illawarra, Wests and Balmain. I'd say the Storm need to keep building their support base to even come close to replacing all these.

For example St.George Illawarra only averaged 9813 last season. 

[Anita Bath]

5 hours ago, rlno1 said:

And Cronulla have a massive property development that will secure their financial future.

It's interesting how RL supporters and media constantly attack Sydney clubs and want certain ones moved or killed off. In Melbourne the opposite happens, they have 9 clubs with greater costs, they nurture and grow their game. They talk about a football "socialism". These clubs are the fabric of their game.

They used to have 11 but deliberately reduced the number of Melbourne teams

[Eddie]

3 hours ago, rlno1 said:

You seem to think that if attendances are low today that's it, they will never go up again.

It’s not that they never will, but the clubs have to be proactive in getting them back and can’t just sit back and expect it to happen naturally. 

[The Great Dane]

16 hours ago, Allora said:

Go into isolation with no internet already.

Its posters like you that will kill this game and the associated Forums like this.

Your know it all posts and ego are putting people off wanting to post or come here.

Give it a rest mate ffs and get a life beyond being the know it all on a Rugby League Forum.

 

I'm sorry that you are totally incapable of accepting that people have opinions other than yours, but that isn't my problem.

And the only person trying to turn somebody off anything is you!

[The Great Dane]

15 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

So which ones have gone bust ?

None because they've all been bailed out, honestly it's not difficult!

Do you want a list of the clubs that should have gone bust over the years?

[Eddie]

4 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

None because they've all been bailed out, honestly it's not difficult!

Do you want a list of the clubs that should have gone bust over the years?

Yes

[The Great Dane]

16 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Melbourne existed, that is growth with, or without the bears

But Melbourne wouldn't exist if Sydney wasn't rationalised after the SL war...

14 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

That’s how many teams you think?

Based on what? Your vague theory of no intimate knowledge of the financial accounts of every Sydney RL Club?

Neither you or @The Great Dane ever want to answer the question to your proposal of which Sydney teams to get rid of.

”I think if you had 9 strong clubs in Sydney... blah blah”

sorry boys, your argument doesn’t cut the mustard.

see you on page 18

Firstly, no clubs should be got rid of, that's just a straw man.

The Tigers and Depending on information that isn't publicly available one of either Cronulla or St. George should be dropped.

Preferably Manly needs to be totally reformed into a club that represents all of NS, which will probably necessitate them being taken over because they've refused to make changes on their own. If Manly can't be reformed into a club for all of NS then they need to go as well, and a discussion has to be had about how you cater too the NS market.

After that though you're probably right for the foreseeable future, but it'll definitely change though because it's totally reliant on market pressures.

Also it's funny that you say our arguments don't cut the mustard when the only arguments that we've got in response have been arguments from tradition, which is one of the worst arguments in human history. 

[The Great Dane]

5 hours ago, rlno1 said:

Exactly, Sydney clubs didn't join the Brisbane comp.

It was Canberra, Newcastle, Illawarra, Newcastle and Auckland, North Qld etc who joined the Sydney comp which is the bedrock Australian RL is built on.

This is so ironic considering the side of the argument that you on.

On the back of a vision of a national competition the NSWRL went around the country and NZ murdering local clubs and traditional competitions, but now that it's their turn to give up some of their traditions and clubs to build a brighter future and achieve that vision they're having none of it.

[The Great Dane]

1 hour ago, Anita Bath said:

They used to have 11 but deliberately reduced the number of Melbourne teams

The AFL are also constantly trying to relocate or merge more of their smaller clubs in Melbourne.

Just Google AFL relocation, there're regularly stories about it.

[The Great Dane]

34 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Yes

I mean it depends how far back you want to go, but Cronulla have been bailed out multiple times over the years, both partners in the merger and the Wests tigers themselves have been bailed out, St. George have borrowed money and been helped by the governing body,  the Rabbitohs, Newcastle, multiple of the former clubs on the Gold Coast and the Titans themselves, I'm probably forgetting a few others as well.

If you add in clubs that were bailed out by News ltd as part of the SL war you can ad a bunch more to that list as well, including the Raiders BTW.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, The Great Dane said:

I mean it depends how far back you want to go, but Cronulla have been bailed out multiple times over the years, both partners in the merger and the Wests tigers themselves have been bailed out, St. George have borrowed money and been helped by the governing body,  the Rabbitohs, Newcastle, multiple of the former clubs on the Gold Coast and the Titans themselves, I'm probably forgetting a few others as well.

If you add in clubs that were bailed out by News ltd as part of the SL war you can ad a bunch more to that list as well, including the Raiders BTW.

That’s all because wages are too high sadly. 

[Eddie]

26 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Too high for so many Sydney clubs. 

The Knights, Warriors and Titans have all struggled financially. I can’t get my head around how that’s possible as they’re not from Sydney. 

[Sports Prophet]

19 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

StG, Manly, Cronulla and Wests are probably the ones you would look at first if we were losing any

Found your recommendations @scotchy1

So what are you basing your decision on here?

Dragons? An icon part owned by one of Australia’s largest media organisations. Representing an area tipped for large population growth as Sydney gets fuller and fuller, in effect future proofed. That goes against your whole reasoning for new markets.

Manly? The sole RL foothold in the entire North Sydney region? Relinquish that to AFL, Union and Soccer. Naive surely.

Cronulla? One of the world’s largest regions for participation in RL and one of Australia’s largest junior soccer participants. A club that owns its ground and is currently undergoing a multi million dollar development of its entertainment site that will secure the finances of this club for decades. Surely not?

Wests, a well financed club with a huge leagues club backing that represents both the inner west and more importantly the greater south west region. An area already specifically represented with recent expansion clubs participating in the national leagues of Australian Rules and Soccer. You think it’s a good idea to cede that territory. You think those two clubs have been added to expand both those codes because it’s a no growth region?

To be fair, I could have built similar strengthened arguments for whichever clubs you chose.

Every club in Sydney plays an integral role in what the sport has become and the opportunities for expansion that lie in wait for the NRL.

[GUBRATS]

3 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

I mean it depends how far back you want to go, but Cronulla have been bailed out multiple times over the years, both partners in the merger and the Wests tigers themselves have been bailed out, St. George have borrowed money and been helped by the governing body,  the Rabbitohs, Newcastle, multiple of the former clubs on the Gold Coast and the Titans themselves, I'm probably forgetting a few others as well.

If you add in clubs that were bailed out by News ltd as part of the SL war you can ad a bunch more to that list as well, including the Raiders BTW.

This ' bailing out ' ? , Was it paid back ? , I assume it was through the NRL ? 

But anyway , I admit to knowing next to nothing about the various structures , their history , so I'll not comment further 

[The Great Dane]

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

That’s all because wages are too high sadly. 

Maybe you can argue that for some of them, but were wages really too high in the 70s, 80s, early 90s, and 00s?

[The Great Dane]

30 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

This ' bailing out ' ? , Was it paid back ? , I assume it was through the NRL ? 

But anyway , I admit to knowing next to nothing about the various structures , their history , so I'll not comment further 

In some cases it was loans, but in a lot of cases, I'm willing to say most cases, it wasn't.

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

Maybe you can argue that for some of them, but were wages really too high in the 70s, 80s, early 90s, and 00s?

I know I said I'm done with it , but just how far back are you going ? , I thought you meant the last decade ?

[The Great Dane]

47 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Found your recommendations @scotchy1

So what are you basing your decision on here?

Dragons? An icon part owned by one of Australia’s largest media organisations. Representing an area tipped for large population growth as Sydney gets fuller and fuller, in effect future proofed. That goes against your whole reasoning for new markets.

Manly? The sole RL foothold in the entire North Sydney region? Relinquish that to AFL, Union and Soccer. Naive surely.

Cronulla? One of the world’s largest regions for participation in RL and one of Australia’s largest junior soccer participants. A club that owns its ground and is currently undergoing a multi million dollar development of its entertainment site that will secure the finances of this club for decades. Surely not?

Wests, a well financed club with a huge leagues club backing that represents both the inner west and more importantly the greater south west region. An area already specifically represented with recent expansion clubs participating in the national leagues of Australian Rules and Soccer. You think it’s a good idea to cede that territory. You think those two clubs have been added to expand both those codes because it’s a no growth region?

To be fair, I could have built similar strengthened arguments for whichever clubs you chose.

Every club in Sydney plays an integral role in what the sport has become and the opportunities for expansion that lie in wait for the NRL.

There're some very dodgy assumptions in here, but the big ones are that A. population growth in the immediate area will result in proportionate growth in support for the local club, and B. that you need an NRL club in every suburb to maintain market share in Sydney.

[Sports Prophet]

44 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

EXcept the dont, thats why they can't wash their own face. 

They all do

[Sports Prophet]

6 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

There're some very dodgy assumptions in here, but the big ones are that A. population growth in the immediate area will result in proportionate growth in support for the local club, and B. that you need an NRL club in every suburb to maintain market share in Sydney.

No less a similar assumption that taking the sport to a new area will result in greater proportionate growth

[Davo5]

9 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

There're some very dodgy assumptions in here, but the big ones are that A. population growth in the immediate area will result in proportionate growth in support for the local club, and B. that you need an NRL club in every suburb to maintain market share in Sydney.

You & Scotchy are basing your whole argument on dodgy assumptions.

[The Great Dane]

7 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

I know I said I'm done with it , but just how far back are you going ? , I thought you meant the last decade ?

Most of the clubs I mentioned have had prolonged financial problems going right back to when they were founded, for example Cronulla have almost gone broke and/or been bailed out about once a decade going back to 70s.

But with the exception of the Raiders, Magpies, and clubs that have actually folded, all of the clubs I named in that post have almost gone broke and/or been bailed out by the NRL at least once in roughly the last decade.