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.
Its a false comparison to compare Stadium Aus to LO or CSS. We only play low drawing clubs at LO & CSS (Souffs this year is an anomaly) and obviously the larger drawing games at SA. Most years we have the Easter game at SA which draws from the Show crowd. By design SA is always going to be bigger than LO. The real question (no data) is what would the games at LO have drawn if at SA.
IMO I think the real shocking number is Western Syd Stadium. To only average 2k more than LO, for bigger drawing teams is telling a story.
I wasn't comparing LO to SA, I was answering a question. One thing I will say is that LO wouldn't have matched SA's average irrespective of the games at LO.
