One home ground

[Tiger5150]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K per game (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

Sorry but that's hearsay, not facts. A board member is gonna tell you anything to justify their decisions.
Souths and dogs have used ANZ as one home ground for decades so I don't believe it doesn't make financial sense. We played at ANZ before south's so we would have been offered their deal.


Souths dont have a suburban option.

They did in 1988 when they moved to SFS. They worked it out 30 years ago, we still can't work it out.


And how did that go for them? They went broke and had to be bought out, selling their soul to two fairy godfathers. That is a hell of a business case.

Please business case ...restrictions had been lifted for stadiums ..please enlighten me why was the capacity at LO capped at 10k on Sunday ,the lefty green council ? The club ? If the capacity of that ground is 18k the club could of been around 200k better off and as usually the fans are locked out once again at a small suburban ground ,I was at Anz Easter Monday nothing will change my mind that fans want a large /convenient stadium that offers family's value for money !
If you want this club to remain a mediocre force in the Sydney basin that's your opinion ...I want this club to play with the big boys in town and offer supporters and members a state of the art facility that is easy to get to have plenty of eating and drinking venues to visit to and from games and most of all value for money for all to attend .The new SFS will offer all this and more .Like it or not our club is an inner city club that has ventured out to the Western fringe of the city a might I say it has been a failure , sure play the odd game at LO because it is an event but that's it nothing more . There is absolutely no business case to play out of these small venues if by chance this club gets its act together on field the continuing locking out of supporters will continue .

What does any of that have to do with what I was discussing with Gallagher? Gallagher made the point that Souffs "worked it out" better than the Tigers 30years ago and I merely pointed out that that brilliant business case of Souffs resulted in them going penniless broke. Not a business case I'd follow.

 

[gallagher]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

If you tell the councils and the state govt your gonna choose one , then that would be a very strong tender process. No?

 

[gallagher]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K per game (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

Sorry but that's hearsay, not facts. A board member is gonna tell you anything to justify their decisions.
Souths and dogs have used ANZ as one home ground for decades so I don't believe it doesn't make financial sense. We played at ANZ before south's so we would have been offered their deal.


Souths dont have a suburban option.

They did in 1988 when they moved to SFS. They worked it out 30 years ago, we still can't work it out.


And how did that go for them? They went broke and had to be bought out, selling their soul to two fairy godfathers. That is a hell of a business case.

Please business case ...restrictions had been lifted for stadiums ..please enlighten me why was the capacity at LO capped at 10k on Sunday ,the lefty green council ? The club ? If the capacity of that ground is 18k the club could of been around 200k better off and as usually the fans are locked out once again at a small suburban ground ,I was at Anz Easter Monday nothing will change my mind that fans want a large /convenient stadium that offers family's value for money !
If you want this club to remain a mediocre force in the Sydney basin that's your opinion ...I want this club to play with the big boys in town and offer supporters and members a state of the art facility that is easy to get to have plenty of eating and drinking venues to visit to and from games and most of all value for money for all to attend .The new SFS will offer all this and more .Like it or not our club is an inner city club that has ventured out to the Western fringe of the city a might I say it has been a failure , sure play the odd game at LO because it is an event but that's it nothing more . There is absolutely no business case to play out of these small venues if by chance this club gets its act together on field the continuing locking out of supporters will continue .


What does any of that have to do with what I was discussing with Gallagher? Gallagher made the point that Souffs "worked it out" better than the Tigers 30years ago and I merely pointed out that that brilliant business case of Souffs resulted in them going penniless broke. Not a business case I'd follow.

South's got booted, didn't go broke. Like Wests and Balmain.

 

[TigerTownSFS]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

Mate it’s a public monopoly not a private monopoly. The NSW government isn’t trying to stuff the clubs over they just want to make people (voters) happy. Walking into the negotiating meeting with a gun to your head saying you will be happy to play at falling apart stadia if they don’t give you a good deal is just absurd. The government is giving the club $70m to build the COE with zero commercial return. They just want to make voters happy.

 

[mike]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

Because you go into negations showing how it would be to their advantage to have you at one of their grounds. What you would bring, and what you need to bring it. You are looking for a win-win scenario. We have large membership and often a large TV audience. You show them how it is to their advantage to support you and give you a good deal. If you give us deal x we can only do v. If you give us deal y we can do z. and so on. This would include corporates and a whole range of other things behind the scene. You show that if they do z they also benefit greatly. It not us vs them. It's us and them forming a partnership.

 

[Tiger5150]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

If you tell the councils and the state govt your gonna choose one , then that would be a very strong tender process. No?

Yes......**IF** the providers of whatever you are purchasing are in competition with each other.

If there is NO competition, like in the case of Stadium NSW and they hold a monopoly and you have no possibility of purchasing what you need from anyone else, then it is a VERY weak position and the club will be bent over.

If you go to a car dealer and you say to him " I HAVE to buy this car from you today and I can not buy it from anyone else, or any other model". What discount do you think you are going to get?

 

[gallagher]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

Because you go into negations showing how it would be to their advantage to have you at one of their grounds. What you would bring, and what you need to bring it. You are looking for a win-win scenario. We have large membership and often a large TV audience. You show them how it is to their advantage to support you and give you a good deal. If you give us deal x we can only do v. If you give us deal y we can do z. and so on. This would include corporates and a whole range of other things behind the scene. You show that if they do z they also benefit greatly. It not us vs them. It's us and them forming a partnership.

If only there was an example somewhere in the world where you could see a professional sporting body use one home stadium as a home ground. If only we could see if it worked somewhere else.

 

[gallagher]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

If you tell the councils and the state govt your gonna choose one , then that would be a very strong tender process. No?


Yes......**IF** the providers of whatever you are purchasing are in competition with each other.

If there is NO competition, like in the case of Stadium NSW and they hold a monopoly and you have no possibility of purchasing what you need from anyone else, then it is a VERY weak position and the club will be bent over.

If you go to a car dealer and you say to him " I HAVE to buy this car from you today and I can not buy it from anyone else, or any other model". What discount do you think you are going to get?

What monopoly? Theyre up against 2 councils.

 

[mike]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

If you tell the councils and the state govt your gonna choose one , then that would be a very strong tender process. No?


Yes......**IF** the providers of whatever you are purchasing are in competition with each other.

If there is NO competition, like in the case of Stadium NSW and they hold a monopoly and you have no possibility of purchasing what you need from anyone else, then it is a VERY weak position and the club will be bent over.

If you go to a car dealer and you say to him " I HAVE to buy this car from you today and I can not buy it from anyone else, or any other model". What discount do you think you are going to get?

Nonsense. That's very one dimensional thinking. It's not about competition it's about how you both benefit. Even monopolies will listen if it is to their advantage.

I'm pretty good, I got a four year interest free deal from the manufacture for my last car.... I didn't even have to pay a deposit. It was a very interesting conversation.. lol

 

[Tiger5150]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K per game (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

Sorry but that's hearsay, not facts. A board member is gonna tell you anything to justify their decisions.
Souths and dogs have used ANZ as one home ground for decades so I don't believe it doesn't make financial sense. We played at ANZ before south's so we would have been offered their deal.


Souths dont have a suburban option.

They did in 1988 when they moved to SFS. They worked it out 30 years ago, we still can't work it out.


And how did that go for them? They went broke and had to be bought out, selling their soul to two fairy godfathers. That is a hell of a business case.

Please business case ...restrictions had been lifted for stadiums ..please enlighten me why was the capacity at LO capped at 10k on Sunday ,the lefty green council ? The club ? If the capacity of that ground is 18k the club could of been around 200k better off and as usually the fans are locked out once again at a small suburban ground ,I was at Anz Easter Monday nothing will change my mind that fans want a large /convenient stadium that offers family's value for money !
If you want this club to remain a mediocre force in the Sydney basin that's your opinion ...I want this club to play with the big boys in town and offer supporters and members a state of the art facility that is easy to get to have plenty of eating and drinking venues to visit to and from games and most of all value for money for all to attend .The new SFS will offer all this and more .Like it or not our club is an inner city club that has ventured out to the Western fringe of the city a might I say it has been a failure , sure play the odd game at LO because it is an event but that's it nothing more . There is absolutely no business case to play out of these small venues if by chance this club gets its act together on field the continuing locking out of supporters will continue .


What does any of that have to do with what I was discussing with Gallagher? Gallagher made the point that Souffs "worked it out" better than the Tigers 30years ago and I merely pointed out that that brilliant business case of Souffs resulted in them going penniless broke. Not a business case I'd follow.

South's got booted, didn't go broke. Like Wests and Balmain.

Souths got booted in 1999, reinstated 2001, broke 2006.

Wests and Balmain didnt get booted or go broke. They merged in 1999 before the criteria was applied.

 

[Tiger5150]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

If you tell the councils and the state govt your gonna choose one , then that would be a very strong tender process. No?


Yes......**IF** the providers of whatever you are purchasing are in competition with each other.

If there is NO competition, like in the case of Stadium NSW and they hold a monopoly and you have no possibility of purchasing what you need from anyone else, then it is a VERY weak position and the club will be bent over.

If you go to a car dealer and you say to him " I HAVE to buy this car from you today and I can not buy it from anyone else, or any other model". What discount do you think you are going to get?

What monopoly? Theyre up against 2 councils.

Enlighten me, which two councils own ANZ and Bankwest...or SFS?

 

[Tiger5150]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

If you tell the councils and the state govt your gonna choose one , then that would be a very strong tender process. No?


Yes......**IF** the providers of whatever you are purchasing are in competition with each other.

If there is NO competition, like in the case of Stadium NSW and they hold a monopoly and you have no possibility of purchasing what you need from anyone else, then it is a VERY weak position and the club will be bent over.

If you go to a car dealer and you say to him " I HAVE to buy this car from you today and I can not buy it from anyone else, or any other model". What discount do you think you are going to get?


Nonsense. That's very one dimensional thinking. It's not about competition it's about how you both benefit. Even monopolies will listen if it is to their advantage.

Free market negotiations are not about competition? What advantage would the Tigers offer to them? Tigers are in competition with at least Bulldogs, Parra and Roosters and Stadium NSW have zero competition. Seems a pretty one sided negotiation.


I'm pretty good, I got a four year interest free deal from the manufacture for my last car.... I didn't even have to pay a deposit. It was a very interesting conversation.. lol

Im sure you are a stunning negotiator. It helps when you always have the option to walk out of the room and go to another dealer or a different make. Imagine sitting that room with no options and the salesman knows it?

I cant believe we are even discussing it. It makes zero sense.

 

[mike]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

If you tell the councils and the state govt your gonna choose one , then that would be a very strong tender process. No?


Yes......**IF** the providers of whatever you are purchasing are in competition with each other.

If there is NO competition, like in the case of Stadium NSW and they hold a monopoly and you have no possibility of purchasing what you need from anyone else, then it is a VERY weak position and the club will be bent over.

If you go to a car dealer and you say to him " I HAVE to buy this car from you today and I can not buy it from anyone else, or any other model". What discount do you think you are going to get?


Nonsense. That's very one dimensional thinking. It's not about competition it's about how you both benefit. Even monopolies will listen if it is to their advantage.

Free market negotiations are not about competition? What advantage would the Tigers offer to them? Tigers are in competition with at least Bulldogs, Parra and Roosters and Stadium NSW have zero competition. Seems a pretty one sided negotiation.


I'm pretty good, I got a four year interest free deal from the manufacture for my last car.... I didn't even have to pay a deposit. It was a very interesting conversation.. lol

Im sure you are a stunning negotiator. It helps when you always have the option to walk out of the room and go to another dealer or a different make. Imagine sitting that room with no options and the salesman knows it?

I cant believe we are even discussing it. It makes zero sense.

Clearly this conversation is now going around in circles. You have your opinion on this matter and I have mine. It looks like never the twain shall meet. We are at opposite poles. That’s just the way it is sometimes.

 

[TigerTownSFS]

West’s tigers have 12 home games and 6 “home” stadiums. It takes until round 9 before we play at the same home ground twice. We are the Travelling Wilburys of the NRL, just filling up the draw. This model is so successful that we haven’t made the final 8 for a decade and we currently sit 13th on the ladder!

 

[gallagher]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K per game (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

Sorry but that's hearsay, not facts. A board member is gonna tell you anything to justify their decisions.
Souths and dogs have used ANZ as one home ground for decades so I don't believe it doesn't make financial sense. We played at ANZ before south's so we would have been offered their deal.


Souths dont have a suburban option.

They did in 1988 when they moved to SFS. They worked it out 30 years ago, we still can't work it out.


And how did that go for them? They went broke and had to be bought out, selling their soul to two fairy godfathers. That is a hell of a business case.

Please business case ...restrictions had been lifted for stadiums ..please enlighten me why was the capacity at LO capped at 10k on Sunday ,the lefty green council ? The club ? If the capacity of that ground is 18k the club could of been around 200k better off and as usually the fans are locked out once again at a small suburban ground ,I was at Anz Easter Monday nothing will change my mind that fans want a large /convenient stadium that offers family's value for money !
If you want this club to remain a mediocre force in the Sydney basin that's your opinion ...I want this club to play with the big boys in town and offer supporters and members a state of the art facility that is easy to get to have plenty of eating and drinking venues to visit to and from games and most of all value for money for all to attend .The new SFS will offer all this and more .Like it or not our club is an inner city club that has ventured out to the Western fringe of the city a might I say it has been a failure , sure play the odd game at LO because it is an event but that's it nothing more . There is absolutely no business case to play out of these small venues if by chance this club gets its act together on field the continuing locking out of supporters will continue .


What does any of that have to do with what I was discussing with Gallagher? Gallagher made the point that Souffs "worked it out" better than the Tigers 30years ago and I merely pointed out that that brilliant business case of Souffs resulted in them going penniless broke. Not a business case I'd follow.

South's got booted, didn't go broke. Like Wests and Balmain.


Souths got booted in 1999, reinstated 2001, broke 2006.

Wests and Balmain didnt get booted or go broke. They merged in 1999 before the criteria was applied.

Yeah, ok. That's accurate.

 

[Tiger5150]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

Mate it’s a public monopoly not a private monopoly. The NSW government isn’t trying to stuff the clubs over they just want to make people (voters) happy. Walking into the negotiating meeting with a gun to your head saying you will be happy to play at falling apart stadia if they don’t give you a good deal is just absurd. ***The government is giving the club $70m to build the COE*** with zero commercial return. They just want to make voters happy.

The government is not giving the club $70M to build a CEO. Canada Bay is building a community facility, for the community, owned by Canada Bay Council. Funding has come from Federal, State and Canada Bay Council. Tigers have paid to be the tenant. Tigers have no ownership or equity.

https://www.canadabay.nsw.gov.au/council/vision-and-projects/major-development-projects/redevelopment-of-concord-oval

 

[gallagher]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

If you tell the councils and the state govt your gonna choose one , then that would be a very strong tender process. No?


Yes......**IF** the providers of whatever you are purchasing are in competition with each other.

If there is NO competition, like in the case of Stadium NSW and they hold a monopoly and you have no possibility of purchasing what you need from anyone else, then it is a VERY weak position and the club will be bent over.

If you go to a car dealer and you say to him " I HAVE to buy this car from you today and I can not buy it from anyone else, or any other model". What discount do you think you are going to get?

What monopoly? Theyre up against 2 councils.


Enlighten me, which two councils own ANZ and Bankwest...or SFS?

I meant Campbelltown and the council that owns Leichhardt. You tell those three parties (state govt the 3rd) that your going to play at one home ground. No tender competitiveness going on there?

Can you drop that garbage like 'enlighten me'?

 

[Tiger5150]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

If you tell the councils and the state govt your gonna choose one , then that would be a very strong tender process. No?


Yes......**IF** the providers of whatever you are purchasing are in competition with each other.

If there is NO competition, like in the case of Stadium NSW and they hold a monopoly and you have no possibility of purchasing what you need from anyone else, then it is a VERY weak position and the club will be bent over.

If you go to a car dealer and you say to him " I HAVE to buy this car from you today and I can not buy it from anyone else, or any other model". What discount do you think you are going to get?

What monopoly? Theyre up against 2 councils.


Enlighten me, which two councils own ANZ and Bankwest...or SFS?

I meant Campbelltown and the council that owns Leichhardt. You tell those three parties (state govt the 3rd) that your going to play at one home ground. No tender competitiveness going on there?

Can you drop that garbage like 'enlighten me'?

The whole discussion with Mike regarding monopolies and competition was about his idea to go to Stadium NSW and as part of the negotiation process announce that we are definitely dropping LO & CSS and will be making one of their Stadia our home.

Stadium NSW hold a complete monopoly on remaining viable stadia in that situation and Tigers have zero competitive options. I cant see how that is a strong negotiation ploy.

 

[gallagher]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

If you tell the councils and the state govt your gonna choose one , then that would be a very strong tender process. No?


Yes......**IF** the providers of whatever you are purchasing are in competition with each other.

If there is NO competition, like in the case of Stadium NSW and they hold a monopoly and you have no possibility of purchasing what you need from anyone else, then it is a VERY weak position and the club will be bent over.

If you go to a car dealer and you say to him " I HAVE to buy this car from you today and I can not buy it from anyone else, or any other model". What discount do you think you are going to get?

What monopoly? Theyre up against 2 councils.


Enlighten me, which two councils own ANZ and Bankwest...or SFS?

I meant Campbelltown and the council that owns Leichhardt. You tell those three parties (state govt the 3rd) that your going to play at one home ground. No tender competitiveness going on there?

Can you drop that garbage like 'enlighten me'?


The whole discussion with Mike regarding monopolies and competition was about his idea to go to Stadium NSW and as part of the negotiation process announce that we are definitely dropping LO & CSS and will be making one of their Stadia our home.

Stadium NSW hold a complete monopoly on remaining viable stadia in that situation and Tigers have zero competitive options. I cant see how that is a strong negotiation ploy.

Ok. How about our discussion?

 

[Tiger5150]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

If you tell the councils and the state govt your gonna choose one , then that would be a very strong tender process. No?


Yes......**IF** the providers of whatever you are purchasing are in competition with each other.

If there is NO competition, like in the case of Stadium NSW and they hold a monopoly and you have no possibility of purchasing what you need from anyone else, then it is a VERY weak position and the club will be bent over.

If you go to a car dealer and you say to him " I HAVE to buy this car from you today and I can not buy it from anyone else, or any other model". What discount do you think you are going to get?

What monopoly? Theyre up against 2 councils.


Enlighten me, which two councils own ANZ and Bankwest...or SFS?

I meant Campbelltown and the council that owns Leichhardt. You tell those three parties (state govt the 3rd) that your going to play at one home ground. No tender competitiveness going on there?

Can you drop that garbage like 'enlighten me'?


The whole discussion with Mike regarding monopolies and competition was about his idea to go to Stadium NSW and as part of the negotiation process announce that we are definitely dropping LO & CSS and will be making one of their Stadia our home.

Stadium NSW hold a complete monopoly on remaining viable stadia in that situation and Tigers have zero competitive options. I cant see how that is a strong negotiation ploy.

Ok. How about our discussion?

Our discussion was about the merits of just one home ground against the current situation, nothing to do with monopolies or competition. I dont see the link?