One home ground

[cochise]

Yep, one home ground indeed. Make it Perth and end all this parochial, blinkered, self-serving rubbish that fills these posts.

lol

I'm serious

So am I

 

[mike]

I think the chances of Liverpool happening are increasing at the moment. If it happens I believe we will be there.


If Liverpool is only 20K (which is what is currently proposed) it will doom the club to be a second tire club, forever. Whilst the Cowboys have a 25K stadium , Eels a 30K stadium, Storm 30K stadium, Roosters 45K stadium, Broncos 52K stadium, with the Rabbits and the Bulldogs sharing an 86K stadium.

It would be the dumbest decision the club could ever make. It would choke any future growth and severely restrict membership access to games.

I don't believe the club will commit to it at 20k, this is currently being discussed behind the scenes. It will likely take a commitment from the Bulldogs and Tigers but they would be pushing for at least 5k more.


5K more is still not good enough. Small thinking.

We draw more than 25k once a year, anywhere above 30k is too big for our purposes.

That's what we do now. Are you happy with that? I want us to draw 45K every week. That's what we should be aiming for, not what we do now.

So you expect us to almost triple our average? Its just not realistic.

Of course it is over 25 years. Stop thinking about how it is now and look to the future. If you are not planning to triple or quadruple membership then you are ensuring the Wests Tigers remain a small club.

Rubbish mate, there are no Sydney clubs anywhere near that average.

**The actually best way to grow membership is to make tickets harder to come** by, not easier. You create demand for tickets and that drives membership.

Half full stadiums do not make a much attend event.


What utter nonsense you speak sometimes.

Mate that is not nonsense, scarcity of tickets creates a reason for casuals to become a member.


That is absurd. If that is the thinking of the club they have seriously lost the plot big time. That is actually chocking demand. You create membership by having a fantastic experience. The more the merrier. Can you think of any other business where restricting product access actually increases sales? I am sure there will be some examples but that's not the normal business model. You have capacity that meets and grows demand, not restrict it.

I do take you point on that but you are not providing a fantastic experience in a stadium that is 1/3 full for the majority of games. 45k is too big, I would want 30k.

You have a stadium like the new SFS will be, where you close off part of it, the upper areas, when not required. It wont look empty. It will be the best place to watch Rugby League. It will also be big enough when needed and as attendance grows.

Except the closed off area was canned to save money.


You still do it. The upper areas may be empty but the lower areas will be packed and provide a great experience and close to the action. It won't be like Stadium Australia where you start off further away from the action.

Yeah can't agree mate, I think the averages also show that people are not willing to travel to the SFS. I would prefer ANZ over the SFS and I hate that stadium.

I'd be happy with either SFS or Stadium Australia. I'd even be happy with Liverpool if it was at least 30K, preferably 45K. Anything less than 30K and Liverpool would be a big no from me.

We need to stop thinking about how things are now are start thinking of where we want them to be. Then put plans in place to achieve that objective. Anything else is a failure of management and planning.

 

[cochise]

I think the chances of Liverpool happening are increasing at the moment. If it happens I believe we will be there.


If Liverpool is only 20K (which is what is currently proposed) it will doom the club to be a second tire club, forever. Whilst the Cowboys have a 25K stadium , Eels a 30K stadium, Storm 30K stadium, Roosters 45K stadium, Broncos 52K stadium, with the Rabbits and the Bulldogs sharing an 86K stadium.

It would be the dumbest decision the club could ever make. It would choke any future growth and severely restrict membership access to games.

I don't believe the club will commit to it at 20k, this is currently being discussed behind the scenes. It will likely take a commitment from the Bulldogs and Tigers but they would be pushing for at least 5k more.


5K more is still not good enough. Small thinking.

We draw more than 25k once a year, anywhere above 30k is too big for our purposes.

That's what we do now. Are you happy with that? I want us to draw 45K every week. That's what we should be aiming for, not what we do now.

So you expect us to almost triple our average? Its just not realistic.

Of course it is over 25 years. Stop thinking about how it is now and look to the future. If you are not planning to triple or quadruple membership then you are ensuring the Wests Tigers remain a small club.

Rubbish mate, there are no Sydney clubs anywhere near that average.

**The actually best way to grow membership is to make tickets harder to come** by, not easier. You create demand for tickets and that drives membership.

Half full stadiums do not make a much attend event.


What utter nonsense you speak sometimes.

Mate that is not nonsense, scarcity of tickets creates a reason for casuals to become a member.


That is absurd. If that is the thinking of the club they have seriously lost the plot big time. That is actually chocking demand. You create membership by having a fantastic experience. The more the merrier. Can you think of any other business where restricting product access actually increases sales? I am sure there will be some examples but that's not the normal business model. You have capacity that meets and grows demand, not restrict it.

I do take you point on that but you are not providing a fantastic experience in a stadium that is 1/3 full for the majority of games. 45k is too big, I would want 30k.

You have a stadium like the new SFS will be, where you close off part of it, the upper areas, when not required. It wont look empty. It will be the best place to watch Rugby League. It will also be big enough when needed and as attendance grows.

Except the closed off area was canned to save money.


You still do it. The upper areas may be empty but the lower areas will be packed and provide a great experience and close to the action. It won't be like Stadium Australia where you start off further away from the action.

Yeah can't agree mate, I think the averages also show that people are not willing to travel to the SFS. I would prefer ANZ over the SFS and I hate that stadium.

I'd be happy with either SFS or Stadium Australia. I'd even be happy with Liverpool if it was at least 30K, preferably 45K. Anything less than 30K and Liverpool would be a big no from me.

We need to stop thinking about how things are now are start thinking of where we want them to be. Then put plans in place to achieve that objective. Anything else is a failure of management and planning.

Mate, I have actually spent a chunk of my career working in strategic planning and the objectives you put in place need to be realistic and achievable.

 

[mike]

I think the chances of Liverpool happening are increasing at the moment. If it happens I believe we will be there.


If Liverpool is only 20K (which is what is currently proposed) it will doom the club to be a second tire club, forever. Whilst the Cowboys have a 25K stadium , Eels a 30K stadium, Storm 30K stadium, Roosters 45K stadium, Broncos 52K stadium, with the Rabbits and the Bulldogs sharing an 86K stadium.

It would be the dumbest decision the club could ever make. It would choke any future growth and severely restrict membership access to games.

I don't believe the club will commit to it at 20k, this is currently being discussed behind the scenes. It will likely take a commitment from the Bulldogs and Tigers but they would be pushing for at least 5k more.


5K more is still not good enough. Small thinking.

We draw more than 25k once a year, anywhere above 30k is too big for our purposes.

That's what we do now. Are you happy with that? I want us to draw 45K every week. That's what we should be aiming for, not what we do now.

So you expect us to almost triple our average? Its just not realistic.

Of course it is over 25 years. Stop thinking about how it is now and look to the future. If you are not planning to triple or quadruple membership then you are ensuring the Wests Tigers remain a small club.

Rubbish mate, there are no Sydney clubs anywhere near that average.

**The actually best way to grow membership is to make tickets harder to come** by, not easier. You create demand for tickets and that drives membership.

Half full stadiums do not make a much attend event.


What utter nonsense you speak sometimes.

Mate that is not nonsense, scarcity of tickets creates a reason for casuals to become a member.


That is absurd. If that is the thinking of the club they have seriously lost the plot big time. That is actually chocking demand. You create membership by having a fantastic experience. The more the merrier. Can you think of any other business where restricting product access actually increases sales? I am sure there will be some examples but that's not the normal business model. You have capacity that meets and grows demand, not restrict it.

I do take you point on that but you are not providing a fantastic experience in a stadium that is 1/3 full for the majority of games. 45k is too big, I would want 30k.

You have a stadium like the new SFS will be, where you close off part of it, the upper areas, when not required. It wont look empty. It will be the best place to watch Rugby League. It will also be big enough when needed and as attendance grows.

Except the closed off area was canned to save money.


You still do it. The upper areas may be empty but the lower areas will be packed and provide a great experience and close to the action. It won't be like Stadium Australia where you start off further away from the action.

Yeah can't agree mate, I think the averages also show that people are not willing to travel to the SFS. I would prefer ANZ over the SFS and I hate that stadium.

I'd be happy with either SFS or Stadium Australia. I'd even be happy with Liverpool if it was at least 30K, preferably 45K. Anything less than 30K and Liverpool would be a big no from me.

We need to stop thinking about how things are now are start thinking of where we want them to be. Then put plans in place to achieve that objective. Anything else is a failure of management and planning.

Mate, I have actually spent a chunk of my career working in strategic planning and the objectives you put in place need to be realistic and achievable.

So have I and transformed an number of organisation.

 

[cochise]

I think the chances of Liverpool happening are increasing at the moment. If it happens I believe we will be there.


If Liverpool is only 20K (which is what is currently proposed) it will doom the club to be a second tire club, forever. Whilst the Cowboys have a 25K stadium , Eels a 30K stadium, Storm 30K stadium, Roosters 45K stadium, Broncos 52K stadium, with the Rabbits and the Bulldogs sharing an 86K stadium.

It would be the dumbest decision the club could ever make. It would choke any future growth and severely restrict membership access to games.

I don't believe the club will commit to it at 20k, this is currently being discussed behind the scenes. It will likely take a commitment from the Bulldogs and Tigers but they would be pushing for at least 5k more.


5K more is still not good enough. Small thinking.

We draw more than 25k once a year, anywhere above 30k is too big for our purposes.

That's what we do now. Are you happy with that? I want us to draw 45K every week. That's what we should be aiming for, not what we do now.

So you expect us to almost triple our average? Its just not realistic.

Of course it is over 25 years. Stop thinking about how it is now and look to the future. If you are not planning to triple or quadruple membership then you are ensuring the Wests Tigers remain a small club.

Rubbish mate, there are no Sydney clubs anywhere near that average.

**The actually best way to grow membership is to make tickets harder to come** by, not easier. You create demand for tickets and that drives membership.

Half full stadiums do not make a much attend event.


What utter nonsense you speak sometimes.

Mate that is not nonsense, scarcity of tickets creates a reason for casuals to become a member.


That is absurd. If that is the thinking of the club they have seriously lost the plot big time. That is actually chocking demand. You create membership by having a fantastic experience. The more the merrier. Can you think of any other business where restricting product access actually increases sales? I am sure there will be some examples but that's not the normal business model. You have capacity that meets and grows demand, not restrict it.

I do take you point on that but you are not providing a fantastic experience in a stadium that is 1/3 full for the majority of games. 45k is too big, I would want 30k.

You have a stadium like the new SFS will be, where you close off part of it, the upper areas, when not required. It wont look empty. It will be the best place to watch Rugby League. It will also be big enough when needed and as attendance grows.

Except the closed off area was canned to save money.


You still do it. The upper areas may be empty but the lower areas will be packed and provide a great experience and close to the action. It won't be like Stadium Australia where you start off further away from the action.

Yeah can't agree mate, I think the averages also show that people are not willing to travel to the SFS. I would prefer ANZ over the SFS and I hate that stadium.

I'd be happy with either SFS or Stadium Australia. I'd even be happy with Liverpool if it was at least 30K, preferably 45K. Anything less than 30K and Liverpool would be a big no from me.

We need to stop thinking about how things are now are start thinking of where we want them to be. Then put plans in place to achieve that objective. Anything else is a failure of management and planning.

Mate, I have actually spent a chunk of my career working in strategic planning and the objectives you put in place need to be realistic and achievable.

So have I and transformed an number of organisation.

To the point where you tripled their customer base in a century old market?

 

[mike]

I think the chances of Liverpool happening are increasing at the moment. If it happens I believe we will be there.


If Liverpool is only 20K (which is what is currently proposed) it will doom the club to be a second tire club, forever. Whilst the Cowboys have a 25K stadium , Eels a 30K stadium, Storm 30K stadium, Roosters 45K stadium, Broncos 52K stadium, with the Rabbits and the Bulldogs sharing an 86K stadium.

It would be the dumbest decision the club could ever make. It would choke any future growth and severely restrict membership access to games.

I don't believe the club will commit to it at 20k, this is currently being discussed behind the scenes. It will likely take a commitment from the Bulldogs and Tigers but they would be pushing for at least 5k more.


5K more is still not good enough. Small thinking.

We draw more than 25k once a year, anywhere above 30k is too big for our purposes.

That's what we do now. Are you happy with that? I want us to draw 45K every week. That's what we should be aiming for, not what we do now.

So you expect us to almost triple our average? Its just not realistic.

Of course it is over 25 years. Stop thinking about how it is now and look to the future. If you are not planning to triple or quadruple membership then you are ensuring the Wests Tigers remain a small club.

Rubbish mate, there are no Sydney clubs anywhere near that average.

**The actually best way to grow membership is to make tickets harder to come** by, not easier. You create demand for tickets and that drives membership.

Half full stadiums do not make a much attend event.


What utter nonsense you speak sometimes.

Mate that is not nonsense, scarcity of tickets creates a reason for casuals to become a member.


That is absurd. If that is the thinking of the club they have seriously lost the plot big time. That is actually chocking demand. You create membership by having a fantastic experience. The more the merrier. Can you think of any other business where restricting product access actually increases sales? I am sure there will be some examples but that's not the normal business model. You have capacity that meets and grows demand, not restrict it.

I do take you point on that but you are not providing a fantastic experience in a stadium that is 1/3 full for the majority of games. 45k is too big, I would want 30k.

You have a stadium like the new SFS will be, where you close off part of it, the upper areas, when not required. It wont look empty. It will be the best place to watch Rugby League. It will also be big enough when needed and as attendance grows.

Except the closed off area was canned to save money.


You still do it. The upper areas may be empty but the lower areas will be packed and provide a great experience and close to the action. It won't be like Stadium Australia where you start off further away from the action.

Yeah can't agree mate, I think the averages also show that people are not willing to travel to the SFS. I would prefer ANZ over the SFS and I hate that stadium.

I'd be happy with either SFS or Stadium Australia. I'd even be happy with Liverpool if it was at least 30K, preferably 45K. Anything less than 30K and Liverpool would be a big no from me.

We need to stop thinking about how things are now are start thinking of where we want them to be. Then put plans in place to achieve that objective. Anything else is a failure of management and planning.

Mate, I have actually spent a chunk of my career working in strategic planning and the objectives you put in place need to be realistic and achievable.

So have I and transformed an number of organisation.

To the point where you tripled their customer base in a century old market?

Do you really want to go down that path?

 

[cochise]

I think the chances of Liverpool happening are increasing at the moment. If it happens I believe we will be there.


If Liverpool is only 20K (which is what is currently proposed) it will doom the club to be a second tire club, forever. Whilst the Cowboys have a 25K stadium , Eels a 30K stadium, Storm 30K stadium, Roosters 45K stadium, Broncos 52K stadium, with the Rabbits and the Bulldogs sharing an 86K stadium.

It would be the dumbest decision the club could ever make. It would choke any future growth and severely restrict membership access to games.

I don't believe the club will commit to it at 20k, this is currently being discussed behind the scenes. It will likely take a commitment from the Bulldogs and Tigers but they would be pushing for at least 5k more.


5K more is still not good enough. Small thinking.

We draw more than 25k once a year, anywhere above 30k is too big for our purposes.

That's what we do now. Are you happy with that? I want us to draw 45K every week. That's what we should be aiming for, not what we do now.

So you expect us to almost triple our average? Its just not realistic.

Of course it is over 25 years. Stop thinking about how it is now and look to the future. If you are not planning to triple or quadruple membership then you are ensuring the Wests Tigers remain a small club.

Rubbish mate, there are no Sydney clubs anywhere near that average.

**The actually best way to grow membership is to make tickets harder to come** by, not easier. You create demand for tickets and that drives membership.

Half full stadiums do not make a much attend event.


What utter nonsense you speak sometimes.

Mate that is not nonsense, scarcity of tickets creates a reason for casuals to become a member.


That is absurd. If that is the thinking of the club they have seriously lost the plot big time. That is actually chocking demand. You create membership by having a fantastic experience. The more the merrier. Can you think of any other business where restricting product access actually increases sales? I am sure there will be some examples but that's not the normal business model. You have capacity that meets and grows demand, not restrict it.

I do take you point on that but you are not providing a fantastic experience in a stadium that is 1/3 full for the majority of games. 45k is too big, I would want 30k.

You have a stadium like the new SFS will be, where you close off part of it, the upper areas, when not required. It wont look empty. It will be the best place to watch Rugby League. It will also be big enough when needed and as attendance grows.

Except the closed off area was canned to save money.


You still do it. The upper areas may be empty but the lower areas will be packed and provide a great experience and close to the action. It won't be like Stadium Australia where you start off further away from the action.

Yeah can't agree mate, I think the averages also show that people are not willing to travel to the SFS. I would prefer ANZ over the SFS and I hate that stadium.

I'd be happy with either SFS or Stadium Australia. I'd even be happy with Liverpool if it was at least 30K, preferably 45K. Anything less than 30K and Liverpool would be a big no from me.

We need to stop thinking about how things are now are start thinking of where we want them to be. Then put plans in place to achieve that objective. Anything else is a failure of management and planning.

Mate, I have actually spent a chunk of my career working in strategic planning and the objectives you put in place need to be realistic and achievable.

So have I and transformed an number of organisation.

To the point where you tripled their customer base in a century old market?


Do you really want to go down that path?

I was just writing the same thing to your deleted post lol

 

[cochise]

Yep, one home ground indeed. Make it Perth and end all this parochial, blinkered, self-serving rubbish that fills these posts.

lol

I'm serious

So am I

Yeah, fair enough. But I've come to the realisation (and I may be wrong, of course) that the Club, as it currently exists, is beyond repair.

Nobody can agree on why the NRL team are performing so badly, because nobody knows.

The decline in the performance and standing of the club is endemic of things beyond a new coach, a new staff, a new CEO, a new Chairperson, a new homeground in Sydney. Everybody offers opinions based on their biases and allegiances and all of it is both true and false at the same time. Nobody knows.

I'm sick of throwing my cash at a cause that is so, in equal parts, fragile, arrogant, unaccountable and embarrassing.

Enough is enough. Rip it apart and start again somewhere else.

Mate it will turn someday, I'm an eternal optimist lol

 

[cochise]

Yep, one home ground indeed. Make it Perth and end all this parochial, blinkered, self-serving rubbish that fills these posts.

lol

I'm serious

So am I

Yeah, fair enough. But I've come to the realisation (and I may be wrong, of course) that the Club, as it currently exists, is beyond repair.

Nobody can agree on why the NRL team are performing so badly, because nobody knows.

The decline in the performance and standing of the club is endemic of things beyond a new coach, a new staff, a new CEO, a new Chairperson, a new homeground in Sydney. Everybody offers opinions based on their biases and allegiances and all of it is both true and false at the same time. Nobody knows.

I'm sick of throwing my cash at a cause that is so, in equal parts, fragile, arrogant, unaccountable and embarrassing.

Enough is enough. Rip it apart and start again somewhere else.

Mate it will turn someday, I'm an eternal optimist lol

Yeah, I was too. Now I'm a pragmatist.

You weren't eternal then. lol

 

[TigerTownSFS]

I think the chances of Liverpool happening are increasing at the moment. If it happens I believe we will be there.


If Liverpool is only 20K (which is what is currently proposed) it will doom the club to be a second tire club, forever. Whilst the Cowboys have a 25K stadium , Eels a 30K stadium, Storm 30K stadium, Roosters 45K stadium, Broncos 52K stadium, with the Rabbits and the Bulldogs sharing an 86K stadium.

It would be the dumbest decision the club could ever make. It would choke any future growth and severely restrict membership access to games.

I don't believe the club will commit to it at 20k, this is currently being discussed behind the scenes. It will likely take a commitment from the Bulldogs and Tigers but they would be pushing for at least 5k more.


5K more is still not good enough. Small thinking.

We draw more than 25k once a year, anywhere above 30k is too big for our purposes.

That's what we do now. Are you happy with that? I want us to draw 45K every week. That's what we should be aiming for, not what we do now.

So you expect us to almost triple our average? Its just not realistic.

Of course it is over 25 years. Stop thinking about how it is now and look to the future. If you are not planning to triple or quadruple membership then you are ensuring the Wests Tigers remain a small club.

Rubbish mate, there are no Sydney clubs anywhere near that average.

**The actually best way to grow membership is to make tickets harder to come** by, not easier. You create demand for tickets and that drives membership.

Half full stadiums do not make a much attend event.


What utter nonsense you speak sometimes.

Mate that is not nonsense, scarcity of tickets creates a reason for casuals to become a member.


That is absurd. If that is the thinking of the club they have seriously lost the plot big time. That is actually chocking demand. You create membership by having a fantastic experience. The more the merrier. Can you think of any other business where restricting product access actually increases sales? I am sure there will be some examples but that's not the normal business model. You have capacity that meets and grows demand, not restrict it.

I do take you point on that but you are not providing a fantastic experience in a stadium that is 1/3 full for the majority of games. 45k is too big, I would want 30k.

You have a stadium like the new SFS will be, where you close off part of it, the upper areas, when not required. It wont look empty. It will be the best place to watch Rugby League. It will also be big enough when needed and as attendance grows.

Except the closed off area was canned to save money.


You still do it. The upper areas may be empty but the lower areas will be packed and provide a great experience and close to the action. It won't be like Stadium Australia where you start off further away from the action.

Yeah can't agree mate, I think the averages also show that people are not willing to travel to the SFS. I would prefer ANZ over the SFS and I hate that stadium.

What is our average at the other grounds over the last 20 years, I think someone posted that a long time ago. 18k average at SFS must be up there with best of all our grounds.

 

[TigerTownSFS]

We got 14k yesterday for a team that is bottom 4. Imagine if we were actually competing for a top 4 spot. A 20k seat stadium is ridiculous, we would end up taken Sydney derby games to ANZ or SFS.

 

[mike]

I think the chances of Liverpool happening are increasing at the moment. If it happens I believe we will be there.


If Liverpool is only 20K (which is what is currently proposed) it will doom the club to be a second tire club, forever. Whilst the Cowboys have a 25K stadium , Eels a 30K stadium, Storm 30K stadium, Roosters 45K stadium, Broncos 52K stadium, with the Rabbits and the Bulldogs sharing an 86K stadium.

It would be the dumbest decision the club could ever make. It would choke any future growth and severely restrict membership access to games.

I don't believe the club will commit to it at 20k, this is currently being discussed behind the scenes. It will likely take a commitment from the Bulldogs and Tigers but they would be pushing for at least 5k more.


5K more is still not good enough. Small thinking.

We draw more than 25k once a year, anywhere above 30k is too big for our purposes.

That's what we do now. Are you happy with that? I want us to draw 45K every week. That's what we should be aiming for, not what we do now.

So you expect us to almost triple our average? Its just not realistic.

Of course it is over 25 years. Stop thinking about how it is now and look to the future. If you are not planning to triple or quadruple membership then you are ensuring the Wests Tigers remain a small club.

Rubbish mate, there are no Sydney clubs anywhere near that average.

**The actually best way to grow membership is to make tickets harder to come** by, not easier. You create demand for tickets and that drives membership.

Half full stadiums do not make a much attend event.


What utter nonsense you speak sometimes.

Mate that is not nonsense, scarcity of tickets creates a reason for casuals to become a member.


That is absurd. If that is the thinking of the club they have seriously lost the plot big time. That is actually chocking demand. You create membership by having a fantastic experience. The more the merrier. Can you think of any other business where restricting product access actually increases sales? I am sure there will be some examples but that's not the normal business model. You have capacity that meets and grows demand, not restrict it.

I do take you point on that but you are not providing a fantastic experience in a stadium that is 1/3 full for the majority of games. 45k is too big, I would want 30k.

You have a stadium like the new SFS will be, where you close off part of it, the upper areas, when not required. It wont look empty. It will be the best place to watch Rugby League. It will also be big enough when needed and as attendance grows.

Except the closed off area was canned to save money.


You still do it. The upper areas may be empty but the lower areas will be packed and provide a great experience and close to the action. It won't be like Stadium Australia where you start off further away from the action.

Yeah can't agree mate, I think the averages also show that people are not willing to travel to the SFS. I would prefer ANZ over the SFS and I hate that stadium.

What is our average at the other grounds over the last 20 years, I think someone posted that a long time ago. 18k average at SFS must be up there with best of all our grounds.

Only to end 2019, didn't include 2020 for obvious reasons.


 

[cochise]

I think the chances of Liverpool happening are increasing at the moment. If it happens I believe we will be there.


If Liverpool is only 20K (which is what is currently proposed) it will doom the club to be a second tire club, forever. Whilst the Cowboys have a 25K stadium , Eels a 30K stadium, Storm 30K stadium, Roosters 45K stadium, Broncos 52K stadium, with the Rabbits and the Bulldogs sharing an 86K stadium.

It would be the dumbest decision the club could ever make. It would choke any future growth and severely restrict membership access to games.

I don't believe the club will commit to it at 20k, this is currently being discussed behind the scenes. It will likely take a commitment from the Bulldogs and Tigers but they would be pushing for at least 5k more.


5K more is still not good enough. Small thinking.

We draw more than 25k once a year, anywhere above 30k is too big for our purposes.

That's what we do now. Are you happy with that? I want us to draw 45K every week. That's what we should be aiming for, not what we do now.

So you expect us to almost triple our average? Its just not realistic.

Of course it is over 25 years. Stop thinking about how it is now and look to the future. If you are not planning to triple or quadruple membership then you are ensuring the Wests Tigers remain a small club.

Rubbish mate, there are no Sydney clubs anywhere near that average.

**The actually best way to grow membership is to make tickets harder to come** by, not easier. You create demand for tickets and that drives membership.

Half full stadiums do not make a much attend event.


What utter nonsense you speak sometimes.

Mate that is not nonsense, scarcity of tickets creates a reason for casuals to become a member.


That is absurd. If that is the thinking of the club they have seriously lost the plot big time. That is actually chocking demand. You create membership by having a fantastic experience. The more the merrier. Can you think of any other business where restricting product access actually increases sales? I am sure there will be some examples but that's not the normal business model. You have capacity that meets and grows demand, not restrict it.

I do take you point on that but you are not providing a fantastic experience in a stadium that is 1/3 full for the majority of games. 45k is too big, I would want 30k.

You have a stadium like the new SFS will be, where you close off part of it, the upper areas, when not required. It wont look empty. It will be the best place to watch Rugby League. It will also be big enough when needed and as attendance grows.

Except the closed off area was canned to save money.


You still do it. The upper areas may be empty but the lower areas will be packed and provide a great experience and close to the action. It won't be like Stadium Australia where you start off further away from the action.

Yeah can't agree mate, I think the averages also show that people are not willing to travel to the SFS. I would prefer ANZ over the SFS and I hate that stadium.

What is our average at the other grounds over the last 20 years, I think someone posted that a long time ago. 18k average at SFS must be up there with best of all our grounds.

22k Stadium Australia 12k CS 13k LO

The difference between Stadium Australia and the SFS needs to be considered in my opinion.

 

[gallagher]

I think the chances of Liverpool happening are increasing at the moment. If it happens I believe we will be there.


If Liverpool is only 20K (which is what is currently proposed) it will doom the club to be a second tire club, forever. Whilst the Cowboys have a 25K stadium , Eels a 30K stadium, Storm 30K stadium, Roosters 45K stadium, Broncos 52K stadium, with the Rabbits and the Bulldogs sharing an 86K stadium.

It would be the dumbest decision the club could ever make. It would choke any future growth and severely restrict membership access to games.

I don't believe the club will commit to it at 20k, this is currently being discussed behind the scenes. It will likely take a commitment from the Bulldogs and Tigers but they would be pushing for at least 5k more.


5K more is still not good enough. Small thinking.

We draw more than 25k once a year, anywhere above 30k is too big for our purposes.

That's what we do now. Are you happy with that? I want us to draw 45K every week. That's what we should be aiming for, not what we do now.

So you expect us to almost triple our average? Its just not realistic.

Of course it is over 25 years. Stop thinking about how it is now and look to the future. If you are not planning to triple or quadruple membership then you are ensuring the Wests Tigers remain a small club.

Rubbish mate, there are no Sydney clubs anywhere near that average.

**The actually best way to grow membership is to make tickets harder to come** by, not easier. You create demand for tickets and that drives membership.

Half full stadiums do not make a much attend event.


What utter nonsense you speak sometimes.

Mate that is not nonsense, scarcity of tickets creates a reason for casuals to become a member.


That is absurd. If that is the thinking of the club they have seriously lost the plot big time. That is actually chocking demand. You create membership by having a fantastic experience. The more the merrier. Can you think of any other business where restricting product access actually increases sales? I am sure there will be some examples but that's not the normal business model. You have capacity that meets and grows demand, not restrict it.

I do take you point on that but you are not providing a fantastic experience in a stadium that is 1/3 full for the majority of games. 45k is too big, I would want 30k.

You have a stadium like the new SFS will be, where you close off part of it, the upper areas, when not required. It wont look empty. It will be the best place to watch Rugby League. It will also be big enough when needed and as attendance grows.

Except the closed off area was canned to save money.


You still do it. The upper areas may be empty but the lower areas will be packed and provide a great experience and close to the action. It won't be like Stadium Australia where you start off further away from the action.

Yeah can't agree mate, I think the averages also show that people are not willing to travel to the SFS. I would prefer ANZ over the SFS and I hate that stadium.

What is our average at the other grounds over the last 20 years, I think someone posted that a long time ago. 18k average at SFS must be up there with best of all our grounds.

Only to 2019, didn't include 2020 for obvious reasons.


TBF 15k at Bankwest is pretty good. I'm surprised SFS averaged 19k.

 

[happy_tiger]

@hobbo1 and @Geo will turn before we do

 

[NJLM78]

We got 14k yesterday for a team that is bottom 4. Imagine if we were actually competing for a top 4 spot. A 20k seat stadium is ridiculous, we would end up taken Sydney derby games to ANZ or SFS.

Of that 14k, half of them were Manly fans. It felt like being at a Manly home game. A lot of the Tigers supporters that I sat with at Bankwest before Covid have not returned.

 

[cochise]

We got 14k yesterday for a team that is bottom 4. Imagine if we were actually competing for a top 4 spot. A 20k seat stadium is ridiculous, we would end up taken Sydney derby games to ANZ or SFS.

Of that 14k, half of them were Manly fans. It felt like being at a Manly home game. A lot of the Tigers supporters that I sat with at Bankwest before Covid have not returned.

I didn't really hear the Manly fans until the real Tigers showed up.