@gnr4life said in [Lost opportunity in Macarthur](/post/1298200) said:
@jc99 said in [Lost opportunity in Macarthur](/post/1298196) said:
@snake said in [Lost opportunity in Macarthur](/post/1298195) said:
@jc99 said in [Lost opportunity in Macarthur](/post/1298192) said:
@snake said in [Lost opportunity in Macarthur](/post/1298158) said:
Does anyone really think that the Weststigers has not engage with the community over the years in the South West .I have grandchildren living in the area and know for a fact that the Tigers attend these schools !
Plenty of posters here with agendas one thinks...
What a load of garbage Re Souths engaging in the South West ,Fact how many NRL games do they play there FAT ZERO! How many schools in the area do they attend each season.
My views are the sooner the Tigers return to there roots the better the inner city is home ! The Campbelltown experiment has been a disaster from the first ball the Magpies kicked off ,I was there and to the last game. WE will no longer attend games there as we think that area has no relevance with our club .
If the club chooses to continue wasting there time there good luck to them..its a flawed concept thinking that being spread over a large area of the city equates to success ..IMO consolidation is the key to success in the Sydney basin .
Souths engaging in the South West Please give me a break!!!
I was born after the merger so no bias there, have lived in the south west my whole life too. trust me mate there's very little promotion of the Wests Tigers out here besides the games and even those aren't advertised much.
I agree that spreading our home grounds everywhere isn't the way to go but this area certainly does have relevance to the Wests tigers and they under utilise it constantly even though it's the fastest growing place in NSW.
Souths will continue to use my area as an area of growth to continue building their membership and viewer numbers. Seems like they're doing it pretty effectively looking at their numbers, we should take note of it.
Your quote of fastest growing population has been touted for 35yrs trust me ,this was the Magpies theme song for many a decade .It is a mirage when you equate population with numbers joining an organisation .
All you gotta do is drive through Gregory hills, oran park and leppington heights to see the amount of new houses and businesses being built. Goldmine for whatever club decides to pursue it which seems to be Souths at the moment.
And it’s just going to continue to get bigger and bigger as new suburbs continue to pop up further and further out. Absolute negligence from our club.
Logical fallacies abound.
Firstly, new houses and new businesses are actually small populations, and whilst future growth is essentially assured (anything above zero is growth), at this time there is as much population available anywhere where there is growth, not just where new houses are going up in empty paddocks.
For example, the highest net gain areas for total population in 2019 were actually Parramatta, Sydney CBD and inner South (Green Square, Waterloo), inner South West (Hurstville-Canterbury).
As a %, of course new suburbs will skyrocket where 1,000 new people is infinitely more than zero people and four cows.
Second fallacy is an assumption that a new area will eventually have a significant population density. There is likely to be more people in Pyrmont and Green Square for a very long time, than Gregory Hills or Leppington per square metre. In fact regional Sydney has always had lower density than inner Sydney.
Therefore why is there any specific argument to focus on a new suburb versus the heavy populations existing in other suburbs? Why South West compared to North West or Central Coast or Wollongong? There are 5.23 million people in Sydney and the combined memberships of all Sydney clubs would be lucky to be 3-4% of that entire population. Therefore developmental opportunities in Sydney, based exclusively on population, abound.
Third fallacy to equate new homes with clear or superior supporter possibilities. The families moving to the Harrington Parks of the South West may already have well-entrenched support for other clubs, or strong ties back to another geographical area, or may have no interest in league whatsoever. In fact, a likely argument exists that new immigrants with no League background tend to migrate to newer suburbs for opportunities and those newer populations, COVID notwithstanding, are very difficult to convert into paid-up members.
Your most viable membership/fan conversion from a non-League background is arguably via existing league supporter pathways. And those existing pathways are just as likely to dominate in existing geographies, particularly those with strong historical ties to rugby league and/or a given club, as much as any new suburb.
Fourthly, Wests Magpies and Wests Tigers have been working in the South West for 35 years. A perceived lack of penetration (I say perceived, because nobody has suggested how to measure Tigers' success or lack of success in entrenching within the community) may indeed be total incompetence.
However you would think, over 35 years, eventually someone with some idea of fan engagement would have come along within a rugby league institution, to have made some significant headway, if such headway was in fact easily made in Macarthur.
The counter argument - if Macarthur is such a lucrative area and new suburbs are such an untapped source of fans, why haven't Souths gone there earlier? Why are only Souths partnering up with local soccer sides? Why isn't every rugby league club clamouring over school access and junior club affiliation in the South West?
Alternatively, it may be that the Magpies and Tigers are fully aware of the opportunities and challenges in Macarthur and are managing those as best they can, with the budget available and politics at hand. It may be that Souths will throw money up against the wall any make very little headway in the region. Souths are arguably the benchmark for member subscriptions, so it remains to be seen if they can be successful in non-traditional jurisdictions.
Lastly I find it a VERY weak argument to suggest that Souths doing some flimsy deal with Macarthur Bulls has some direct indication on the effort, or lack of effort, by Wests Tigers in Macarthur. I can imagine, had Tigers done the partnership, that lots of supporters would point to it as "fluff" or a waste of time, or counter-productive, as much as anyone might say it is innovative.
Souths are "partnering" with a soccer team, which I find to be a token approach in any region. It may actually be highly innovative, but one has to ask are Roosters partnering with Sydney FC, or Parramatta with Wanderers? Knights with the Falcons? At what point does the partnership become negatively competitive?
At what point does the A-League actively compete significantly with rugby league? Should NRL clubs be getting into bed with soccer, when soccer is one of the major codes competing for juniors? When parents concerned about the full-contact nature of League instead prefer their girls and boys to play football or basketball?
Souths might as well partner up with GWS if they really want to get down with an alternative-code club that actually has some financial clout.