Party of five

Gary_Bakerloo

New member
**Five foes forge coalition set to ensure financial viability of clubs**

April 12, 2012

IT'S the NRL's version of the supergroup: five Sydney clubs who have cast aside decades of animosity to join forces, pledging to work together rather than against each other.

South Sydney, Canterbury-Bankstown, Sydney Roosters, St George Illawarra and Wests Tigers have formed a coalition aimed at combining their ideas and resources to raise attendances and ensure they are more financially viable into the future.

It began as a meeting last Monday week involving the chief executives of four of the clubs at the renovated Belmore offices of the Bulldogs. It continued on Tuesday when marketing and sponsorship staff of all five clubs met at the Rabbitohs' Redfern headquarters.

While being opponents on the field, the five clubs see themselves as similar businesses with similar goals in a difficult financial climate. The Rabbitohs and the Bulldogs play out of ANZ Stadium while the Roosters and the Tigers - the latter to a lesser extent - play out of Allianz Stadium. The Dragons have one of the most marketable brands in the competition.

''This is something we should have done a lot earlier,'' Souths boss Shane Richardson said.

The five clubs aim to share ideas about attendances, membership, and have even raised the prospect of sharing sponsorships. The group discussed ways of attracting sponsors who will be willing to purchase jersey sponsorship or on-ground signage across all five clubs, rather than just one. ''It's five-times the exposure [for the sponsor],'' Richardson said.

''In this particular case, we wanted to be proactive. There's a whole gamut of things we can be talking about, structure of staff, different ways to improve attendances, the way we spend our money. It's about best practices.''

The idea of the Rabbitohs and the Roosters, bitter enemies since 1908, joining together is significant in itself. ''The reality is, there's always rivalry,'' Richardson said. ''While on the field, they're going to try to bash each other, as businesses, we're very similar. For the game's sake, it's a matter of trying to make sure we all survive. We're all rivals, but we want to make our businesses better. Rather than whingeing and whining about our problems, we're doing something positive about it.''

Richardson was cast as a villain last week after suggesting all nine Sydney clubs should play out of ANZ and Allianz stadiums, but the fact remains his comments prompted debate in the subject. While his extreme stadium policy might not be adopted, even a compromise would net the clubs extra money.

Richardson has stated that attendances, which have been down on last year's figures, was the most important issue in the code. The group discussed how tomorrow night's Carlton and Collingwood AFL match will be played in front of a massive crowd at the MCG, with a largely even split of supporters even though it will be Carlton's home contest. The sentiment from the group was that the days of not wanting opposition supporters to turn up in order to add to home-ground advantage was ''something from 20 years ago''.

''The game's at an exciting stage,'' Roosters chief executive Steve Noyce said. ''But commercially there are some challenges for all sports in Australia. We'll share some ideas and discuss what we can do as a collective group.''

Noyce said rather than excluding the other Sydney teams, any of the other clubs in the competition were welcome to use ideas from the brainstorm. He said the group had forwarded information from the meeting to ARLC officials. ''There's nothing stopping all 16 clubs looking at new ideas,'' he said.

Bulldogs chief executive Todd Greenberg added: ''It's always good to have collaborative discussions surrounding common challenges … there are numerous opportunities off the field to continue to work together.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/five-foes-forge-coalition-set-to-ensure-financial-viability-of-clubs-20120411-1wsax.html#ixzz1rlyP7CBZ

Manly, Cronulla, Parramatta and Penrith not involved. Interesting…..
 
This is fantastic news and a move that will hopefully ensure we all have teams and a league to follow for many years to come.

We have to look at ways to change and while it's important we don't forget our heritage innovative ideas are the way forward. The only realistic way to increase revenue is from corporate sponsorship and increased gate receipts. We have to get out of the mind set especially In Sydney that traveling to see your side play is somehow a bad thing and just lining the other teams pockets.

If memberships included increased away ticket
benefits this would be fantastic.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_
 
This is a good thing for the Sydney Clubs… For far too long they have been working against each other. Having the opportunity to simply discuss 'whys', 'hows' & 'what if' in a open forum should see these 5 clubs working towards a stronger financial future.
 
@Gary Bakerloo said:
The sentiment from the group was that the days of not wanting opposition supporters to turn up in order to add to home-ground advantage was ''something from 20 years ago''.

This is the comment I found most interesting. When Richardson came out in the press and called for leaving suburban grounds, the usual suspects like Manly blew up straight away. This quote basically tells a club like Manly that their business model is 20 years behind the top teams.

Also, who would have thought Wests and Balmain would have been at such a discussion 15 years ago? It is brilliant and shows the hard decisions made since 1999 are slowly but surely paying dividends.
 
It doesn't surprise me that Manly, Cronulla et al aren't there. Their business model relies upon the NRL drip feeding them with grants to stay off the executioner coupled with leagues club funding, and places no responsibility upon them to ensure they extract as much revenue as they can out of their brand.

In the short term I have no problem with the NRL upping the grants, but I would like after a period of five years or so for the grants to go exclusively toward player payments and not be able to subsidise the cost of football club operations. The ARLC should make clubs exclusively responsible for bankrolling their own overheads and putting the onus on the clubs to make their futures viable. If they can't, revoke their license.
 

Members online

Back
Top