Fraze23
Well-known member
"I can't be clearer: we have no plans to move Cronulla. Will only address ASADA outcomes based on facts and we'll continue to help the club" - Dave Smith
Insolvent Sharks may have to move
- Thread starter wtfl1981
- Start date
happy_tiger
Well-known member
@Fraze23 said:
"Joe Bloggs has the full support of the CEO and the board "
They'll probably help to provide removalists for the club after ASADA goes down and by that stage they won't be known as Cronulla
Probably will never eventuate as you said , but lets wait and see exactly what fallout comes from the ASADA investigations
Cronulla may not even be the worst club affected by all this yet (player wise), but if fines are involved obviously the Sharks have the most to lose
citizen_cub
New member
Relocation wouldn't affect the TV rights deal as broadcasters would still be getting their usual 8 games a week. If a franchise folded completely (if that's what you're alluding to) and we went back to the old system of 7 games a week + 1 team having a bye then yes I'm sure broadcasters would dispute this.
Re: Cronulla if they were to pack up shop and move to an expansion region (central Qld, Perth, Gosford etc.) they would lose say 10,000-20,000 supporters max? and it's fair to say this figure won't be changing anytime soon. Where as moving elsewhere could potentially see the Sharks gain tens of thousands of supporters so I don't see any great value lost to the right's deal through relocating them.
It's the 'elephant in the room' in footy that there's too many teams in Sydney and that rationalisation is needed to improve the game's national standing. If the NRL (or ARL back then) could eradicate historic, foundation teams who'd experienced success such as the Bears and Jets then surely relatively young clubs with little success such as the Cronulla are expendable
Re: Cronulla if they were to pack up shop and move to an expansion region (central Qld, Perth, Gosford etc.) they would lose say 10,000-20,000 supporters max? and it's fair to say this figure won't be changing anytime soon. Where as moving elsewhere could potentially see the Sharks gain tens of thousands of supporters so I don't see any great value lost to the right's deal through relocating them.
It's the 'elephant in the room' in footy that there's too many teams in Sydney and that rationalisation is needed to improve the game's national standing. If the NRL (or ARL back then) could eradicate historic, foundation teams who'd experienced success such as the Bears and Jets then surely relatively young clubs with little success such as the Cronulla are expendable
Marshall_magic
New member
Central Queensland Sharks
Inaugural captain: Paul Gallen
Yeah this will go down well.
Inaugural captain: Paul Gallen
Yeah this will go down well.
Cronulla are a parasite on the league they should of been kicked out of the league 25yrs ago , I can't remember the amount of times consistent leagues have had to bail them out over the last 35 yrs they are a disgrace .After all the money that was given to them as soon as super league came along they jumped on board …hope this happens tomorrow to those parasites!!!!!
What I don't understand is if they are in such financial trouble and disarray as a club all the time how come they've been able to sign up so many good players in recent years? All their crap hasn't stopped players like Lewis and Gordon signing on, yet we can hardly attract anyone decent!
happy_tiger
Well-known member
@pacey said:
CQ Bull Sharks
Fairly apt seeing Rockhampton is the Beef Capital :wink:
Gary_Bakerloo
New member
Hope this is true. Finally, an altruistic decision by the game devoid of a pathetic club self interest. Move this mob to Queensland. Manly is next to go.
The business strategy of the NRL has been laid bare by the press in recent weeks. TV ratings and crowds are down because three of the six "popular" clubs (Brisbane, St. George-Illawarra, Wests, Parramatta, Canterbury and Souths) underperformed this year. I am confused…..what do the other 10 teams bring to the competition? Wasn't being popular the reason for including/excluding teams after Super League?
The business strategy of the NRL has been laid bare by the press in recent weeks. TV ratings and crowds are down because three of the six "popular" clubs (Brisbane, St. George-Illawarra, Wests, Parramatta, Canterbury and Souths) underperformed this year. I am confused…..what do the other 10 teams bring to the competition? Wasn't being popular the reason for including/excluding teams after Super League?
happy_tiger
Well-known member
@Gary Bakerloo said:
Move Manly to NZ
Gary_Bakerloo
New member
@Abraham said:
Manly to the Central Coast. There is no need for a team on the northern beaches.
I can't see how they are the safest. They have been in the finals **every year** since 2005 and their home crowd average has **reduced** by approximately 2000 and now average just 13,000\. This club is a ticking financial disaster and when onfield performances turn south, they will hit the wall.
