Hard for Tigers to have any specific long-term plans at this time, given that the govt hasn't even decided how to spend their stadium money.
A couple of things however are clear at this time and are unlikely to change any time soon:
1) Tigers usually average around 13-15K crowds over a season and most of these are losing seasons. CSS and LO can easily accommodate these numbers and are better venues for smaller crowds.
2) Tigers crowds will increase with success. In these situations, you would need to have Sydney derbies at the larger venues. We've already seen what happens if Tigers play someone like Rabbits where both clubs are in finals contention. That being said, overall crowds still rarely top 20K.
3) As of 2017 only one club - Broncos obviously - averages more than 20K per game despite several clubs having over or close to 20K members.
4) If not for the financial incentives to play at Homebush or SFS (or some new iteration of these venues), we wouldn't play there regularly. But facilities, sponsorship, corporate boxes etc. - these are something CSS and LO will never match the primary stadia.
5) Fans do appear to enjoy suburban grounds, despite the decreased facilities.
6) Our grounds are comparatively well serviced by public transport - the Leichhardt North LR at LO and Leumeah station at CSS.
7) If you increase the frequency of local games, you do risk decreasing the "boutique" nature of these matches. I've been going to Leichhardt for a long time, but people have really only been banging on about the "beauty" of the venue since Balmain merged and the # of games decreased. Nostalgia kicks in for old-time Sunday afternoon football in the sun, but if Tigers played there every 2nd home game, such a mood might wane.
8) There are only ever more supporters who aren't affiliated with Wests or Balmain, and these folks might not have the same emotional investment in LO or CSS in the future years.
9) There is limited money long-term for suburban grounds, and once the govt spends their current funds, there might be a time limit on how long these grounds are viable.
10) NRL wants to grow crowds but not at the expense of TV revenues. They have succeeded in growing memberships across the clubs, and a push for game-day attendances might be a new game-wide strategy. But as long as ratings are high and someone forks out a billion dollars for TV rights, the crowds remain the clubs' primary concern but not the NRL's.
11) The irony is that despite the "concern" about 2017 crowds, the average crowds of the last 10 years are at all-time highs. Therefore an increase in the live coverage of matches (and now simulcasted on pay TV and mobile phones) has not obliterated the crowds. All-time average crowds since 1957 is 13K.
12) There is likely a positive influence of Sydney's growing population that has offset potential downward trends in crowds, but I have never seen that analysed anywhere. If you were to plot population against crowd sizes there would be some sort of correlation (general increase in average crowds along with increase in population), but you should also then factor in other things wrt population: location, born locally or overseas, history with NRL (i.e. bringing in new fans vs those whose families are already involved), competition and growth in other codes, disposable income levels, average work hours etc.
13) The Broncos and Melbourne have certainly pushed up the NRL crowd averages, but that isn't cheating, it's growing the game. So in reality the reasons for increase in crowds are all ok, so long as you can at least sustain them.
Capture.JPG
