Expansion Media reaction: SL-NRL expansion vs. AFL two-team expansion plans

[Subprime]

They will be a Pacific Islands team, not a true local Gold Coast team.

Docklands and Homebush are not perfectly suited to RL, RU or Soccer. However, there capacity accomodates the big games and there facilities accomodate some Sydney-based NRL teams who don't have suitable facilities in the 'burbs. Also, I've heard BF members say many times Homebush is not perfectly suited to AFL either.

Homebush is not a configuration of a stadium which NRL teams aspire to call home.

Are you really serious about the GC union concept, it sounds fanciful?

I understood that the number of Rugby League tenants at Homebush had actually increased in recent years. For instance South Sydney has moved games to Homebush despite the supposed configuration issues and the closer proximity of the SFS.

How do you explain this?

 

[littleduck]

Are you really serious about the GC union concept, it sounds fanciful?

Yeah, it's a serious concept, but yeah it's a bit fanciful.

I understood that the number of Rugby League tenants at Homebush had actually increased in recent years.

True.

For instance South Sydney has moved games to Homebush despite the supposed configuration issues and the closer proximity of the SFS.

True.

How do you explain this?

For several reasons, none of which relate to the atmosphere generated by a 20-30k crowd. The reason is that Homebush are desperate for tenants and therefore offer financial incentives for clubs to relocate some or all of their home games. Financial incentives that are too good to refuse, for example South Sydney moving from SFS to Homebush. In favour of Homebush however, is that the facilities are first class for corporate sponsors and patrons... just not the proximity of fans to the field of play.

 

[Subprime]

...

For several reasons, none of which relate to the atmosphere generated by a 20-30k crowd. The reason is that Homebush are desperate for tenants and therefore offer financial incentives for clubs to relocate some or all of their home games. Financial incentives that are too good to refuse, for example South Sydney moving from SFS to Homebush. In favour of Homebush however, is that the facilities are first class for corporate sponsors and patrons... just not the proximity of fans to the field of play.

So Homebush is in 'oval configuration' for Souths and other H&A NRL games, is that right?

 

[littleduck]

So Homebush is in 'oval configuration' for Souths and other H&A NRL games, is that right?

I understand there are 2 configurations at Homebush, oval-shaped and non-so-oval-shaped. However, neither configuration is perfectly suited to RL or RU or Soccer.

 

[Subprime]

I understand there are 2 configurations at Homebush, oval-shaped and non-so-oval-shaped. However, neither configuration is perfectly suited to RL or RU or Soccer.

So which one do they use for the average NRL H&A game?

 

[littleduck]

So which one do they use for the average NRL H&A game?

I think the not-so-oval-shaped configuration is the "norm" and is only converted to true oval-shaped configuration a few times a year for the Swans.

 

[littleduck]

So Homebush is in 'oval configuration' for Souths and other H&A NRL games, is that right?

No, I don't believe so.

 

[Subprime]

I think the not-so-oval-shaped configuration is the "norm" and is only converted to true oval-shaped configuration a few times a year for the Swans.

Its interesting that South Sydney gave up a purpose built Rugby stadium for one you say is less than perfect but has 'financial incentives'. And other Sydney Rugby League clubs can put up with the imperfections too.

But a few hundred miles north on the Gold Coast it was inconceivable for a similar compromise to be countenanced?

In the spirit of co-existance that is.

 

[Rob]

I think the not-so-oval-shaped configuration is the "norm" and is only converted to true oval-shaped configuration a few times a year for the Swans.

There's no question the stadium was designed for the not so oval shape (evident by the fact that a lot of seats become restricted view on the 'oval' shape), but most of the year it's in the 'oval' shape because otherwise the grass wouldn't grow on the wings.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Its interesting that South Sydney gave up a purpose built Rugby stadium for one you say is less than perfect but has 'financial incentives'. And other Sydney Rugby League clubs can put up with the imperfections too.

But a few hundred miles north on the Gold Coast it was inconceivable for a similar compromise to be countenanced?

In the spirit of co-existance that is.

Well maybe if the AFL had played there cards BEFORE the stadium deal was announced then they would have had a say. But the horse had already bolted by the time the AFL came out with their plans.

That said, Telstra is not a great ground for Rugby League, but I will put up with it if it helps my club financially. Better than the showground/baseball field that they were using before. Worst ground ever.

 

[Subprime]

Well maybe if the AFL had played there cards BEFORE the stadium deal was announced then they would have had a say. But the horse had already bolted by the time the AFL came out with their plans.

That said, Telstra is not a great ground for Rugby League, but I will put up with it if it helps my club financially. Better than the showground/baseball field that they were using before. Worst ground ever.

The NRL expansion franchise was only available to the Gold Coast if a Rugby League specific stadium was built.

Not much chance of co-existance with the AFL in that scenario.

 

[littleduck]

The NRL expansion franchise was only available to the Gold Coast if a Rugby League specific stadium was built.

Not much chance of co-existance with the AFL in that scenario.

True, but co-existence does not relate solely to sharing the same venue.

 

[littleduck]

Its interesting that South Sydney gave up a purpose built Rugby stadium for one you say is less than perfect but has 'financial incentives'. And other Sydney Rugby League clubs can put up with the imperfections too.

But a few hundred miles north on the Gold Coast it was inconceivable for a similar compromise to be countenanced?

In the spirit of co-existance that is.

Exactly. Oval-shaped venues are bad for repeat patronage in RL. Up close and personal generates an atmosphere that draws bigger crowds on average. The Titans business plan was built around maximising crowds.

 

[Subprime]

Exactly. Oval-shaped venues are bad for repeat patronage in RL. Up close and personal generates an atmosphere that draws bigger crowds on average. The Titans business plan was built around maximising crowds.

Its hard to believe any of this stuff. You make a statement that the Rugby League specific field draws bigger crowds on average.

So are Holmes a Court and Crowe mad? After all they've just sold off their clubs pokies and moved from a Rugby League specific field to one you claim somehow puts off crowds. What's the South Sydney business plan about?

 

[Subprime]

True, but co-existence does not relate solely to sharing the same venue.

What a joke.

We're talking about national sporting clubs here whose facilities are a key issue. The GC is a relatively small region and the fully-funded government stadium has been blown on a code specific stadium.

How do the Titans plan to co-exist with the AFL, share towels?

 

[littleduck]

What a joke.

We're talking about national sporting clubs here whose facilities are a key issue. The GC is a relatively small region and the fully-funded government stadium has been blown on a code specific stadium.

How do the Titans plan to co-exist with the AFL, share towels?

Would an AFL expansion team accept second best in the same way you think an NRL team should have acccepted second best and a reduced income? No, you do what is best for yourself.

And the new Robina Stadium is multi-purpose - RL, RU, Soccer.

 

[littleduck]

Its hard to believe any of this stuff.

Brisbane is a prime example of oval-shaped fields turning fans off over time and RL football-specific venues bringing crowds back.

You make a statement that the Rugby League specific field draws bigger crowds on average.

Yes, week in week out that is common sense.

So are Holmes a Court and Crowe mad?

Arguably.

After all they've just sold off their clubs pokies and moved from a Rugby League specific field to one you claim somehow puts off crowds. What's the South Sydney business plan about?

There were good financial reasons to move from SFS to Homebush. South Sydney are working hard to grow their crowds, in fact harder than any other club in Sydney.

 

[Subprime]

Would an AFL expansion team accept second best in the same way you think an NRL team should have acccepted second best and a reduced income? No, you do what is best for yourself.

And the new Robina Stadium is multi-purpose - RL, RU, Soccer.

No problem with the Titans doing what's best for them. Dare I say it, good luck to them.

Just don't try and make out that its the AFL who refuse to co-exist and expect credibility on this forum.

As for multi-purpose well as for Union I thought you conceded yesterday this is fanciful. Soccer, hmmm well not this year, maybe not next year either.

 

[Subprime]

Brisbane is a prime example of oval-shaped fields turning fans off over time and RL football-specific venues bringing crowds back.

...

There were good financial reasons to move from SFS to Homebush. South Sydney are working hard to grow their crowds, in fact harder than any other club in Sydney.

So do the Broncos get bigger crowds now than in the ANZ stadium days?

I find it hard to believe your claim that a Rugby League specific field is the only model that works when the Sydney experience provides evidence directly to the contrary. And Souths aren't the only club moving games from Rugby League specific fields to Homebush.

If your not going to put up some evidence to support your theory you are just blowing hot air.

 

[littleduck]

No problem with the Titans doing what's best for them. Dare I say it, good luck to them.

And what's best is clearly a mini-Lang Park type venue.

Just don't try and make out that its the AFL who refuse to co-exist and expect credibility on this forum.

All codes try to out-maneouvre other brands of football in a strategic sense. It's healthy competition.

I believe all 4 brands of football can comfortably co-exist in all markets around Australia. I am a supporter of co-existence.

As for multi-purpose well as for Union I thought you conceded yesterday this is fanciful. Soccer, hmmm well not this year, maybe not next year either.

SKilled Park remains in a position to secure Wallabies matches and perhaps pinch the off Reds match from Lang Park. The point is that RU is well catered for on the Gold Coast with skilled if and when it decides to embrace a full-time Gold Coast based team.

Ditto for soccer, and it looks like soccer will be the next in on the Gold Coast with the Galaxy in the A-League.

 

[littleduck]

So do the Broncos get bigger crowds now than in the ANZ stadium days?

Yes and no. The Broncos were at QEII for about 10 years or so. In the first few years, crowds were booming and the greater capacity stadium was justified. However, over time it became difficult to grow repeat patronage as fans got sick & tired of attending a venue where viewing was abysmal. Therefore, crowds dropped markedly. Crowds are booming again since the return to Lang Park.

I find it hard to believe your claim that a Rugby League specific field is the only model that works when the Sydney experience provides evidence directly to the contrary. And Souths aren't the only club moving games from Rugby League specific fields to Homebush.

If your not going to put up some evidence to support your theory you are just blowing hot air.

The Sydney experience proves my point. The spiritual home of RL in Sydney is the SCG, but that venue is no longer used on a regular basis precisely because it's oval-shaped and inappropriate for RL football. It's the reason why the SFS was built next door a mere 100 metres away.

Homebush has its faults, particularly fans being too far from the action compared to RL-specific venues, but the advantages are still plenty, including first class facilities and good financial incentives on offer from ground management.

 

[Subprime]

Yes and no. The Broncos were at QEII for about 10 years or so. In the first few years, crowds were booming and the greater capacity stadium was justified. However, over time it became difficult to grow repeat patronage as fans got sick & tired of attending a venue where viewing was abysmal. Therefore, crowds dropped markedly. Crowds are booming again since the return to Lang Park.

The Sydney experience proves my point. The spiritual home of RL in Sydney is the SCG, but that venue is no longer used on a regular basis precisely because it's oval-shaped and inappropriate for RL football. It's the reason why the SFS was built next door a mere 100 metres away.

Homebush has its faults, particularly fans being too far from the action compared to RL-specific venues, but the advantages are still plenty, including first class facilities and good financial incentives on offer from ground management.

Can you flesh out the Broncos theory with some numbers? What you have put up seems a tad anecdotal to me.

You've been claiming on this thread that RL-specific venues pull the crowds in. But in Sydney Souths and other RL clubs are shunning the purpose-built RL-facility at SFS for Homebush. How does that prove your point?

 

[littleduck]

Can you flesh out the Broncos theory with some numbers? What you have put up seems a tad anecdotal to me.

TBA.

You've been claiming on this thread that RL-specific venues pull the crowds in.

Clearly, RL football specific venues generates the perfect atmosphere for RL matches and therefore repeat patronage becomes an easier sell than asking patrons to return to a field with poor viewing angles.

But in Sydney Souths and other RL clubs are shunning the purpose-built RL-facility at SFS for Homebush. How does that prove your point?

South Sydney settled for second best (Homebush over SFS) due to financial incentives. $$$ over-rules all else.

Other clubs such as Canterbury use Homebush because it's the premier venue near their territory.

Homebush is not sub-standard. It's a world class facilitiy. It just isn't ideally suited to RL football. Repeat patronage for week in week out football is a tad more difficult than teams who use grounds like Parramatta Stadium, Lang Park, Robina Stadium, etc.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

Can you flesh out the Broncos theory with some numbers? What you have put up seems a tad anecdotal to me.

Yeah, in the early days of ANZ stadium, the Broncos got crowds in the high 50,000 zone, a year before Lang park reopened, the ANZ average was around 19,000.

Now the Broncos are averaging over 30,000 again.

You've been claiming on this thread that RL-specific venues pull the crowds in. But in Sydney Souths and other RL clubs are shunning the purpose-built RL-facility at SFS for Homebush. How does that prove your point?

South Sydney make money if they play at Homebush regardless if 1 person comes through the gate, that's why they moved there, the SFS was charging Souths heaps more than the Roosters and they were losing money, if you can get money for nothing, why not take it?

The Bulldogs used Parra Stadium for a few years because their own ground was not up to standard, then they moved back for a little while, now they play full time out of Home bush.

The Wests tigers use Home bush for about 3-4 games a year and average a lot more than they do at their other two home grounds.

South Sydneys crowds have nearly doubled since moving to Home bush, it is working.

Parramatta will be using Home bush this weekend, I'm not sure, but I think they will be using it for games which would sellout at parra to get more people to attend, we'll see how it turns out.

Saints are using either the SFS or Home bush this year as well.

I said in another thread, the sydney teams are starting to do what the Victorian clubs did in the late 80's by moving to the MCG to maxamize crowds.

If the mob at Home Bush are giving RL clubs better offers to play there, why not take it?

 

[littleduck]

Can you flesh out the Broncos theory with some numbers? What you have put up seems a tad anecdotal to me.

Brisbane Broncos Home Crowds

Lang Park
1988 - 16,111 average
1989 - 18,217 average
1990 - 22,709 average
1991 - 19,463 average
1992 - 21,687 average - required a bigger stadium so they moved

QEII Sports Ground (ANZ Stadium)
1993 - 43,200 average - booming crowds (bigger than Collingwood at the time) justified the move to a bigger capacity stadium
1994 - 37,705 average -
1995 - 35,902 average - crowds still booming but steadily declining
1996 - 23,712 average - Super League war put a bullet in the crowds
1997 - 19,298 average - The one and only year of Super League
1998 - 20,973 average - The re-unified competition
1999 - 22,763 average
2000 - 21,239 average - not surprising that about this time the Brisbane Lions were calling home to the new and improved Gabba which presented an atmosphere far superior to ANZ Stadium
2001 - 20,035 average
2002 - 20,131 average - crowds steady for 5 years. difficult to attract the same numbers as yesteryear to a crap viewing stadium with poor facilities.
2003 - 24,326 average

Lang Park (Suncorp Stadium)
2004 - 28,667 average - big boost in crowds at the new venue
2005 - 30,331 average
2006 - 31,208 average
2007 - 34,008 average - repeat patronage to a world class RL-specific venue much easier and consequently crowds growing rapidly