Wests Tigers lock out opposition and casual fans
Roar Guru By mds1970, 22 Feb 2012 mds1970 is a Roar Guru
Related coverage
Professional sporting clubs in Australia have placed much emphasis in recent years on turning fans into members. It’s not hard to see why. The money from memberships goes directly to the club, rather than to the league, ticket agencies or other parties.
Attendance that is already paid for is locked in; and if it’s cold or wet or the team isn’t doing well, you’re more likely to make the effort to go to the game if you’ve already paid.
There are other benefits to clubs as well. You have a database to sell to sponsors, and are able to invite them individually to club functions.
AFL clubs have long built up strong membership bases. The 16 longer-running clubs all have memberships over 20,000. Gold Coast have over 10,000 as they enter their second season, while new club GWS Giants are building their membership with their first game just a month away.
NRL clubs were slower to get on board the membership drive bandwagon; but have made big gains in recent seasons. Brisbane, St George Illawarra, the Bulldogs and Souths have over 10,000 members; while other clubs are getting close.
But it’s a new tactic to attract members by Wests Tigers that is attracting attention this week, and could backfire on the club.
The new NRL season starts in the first weekend in March. Wests Tigers are drawn to play Cronulla at Leichhardt Oval on the Sunday afternoon in the opening round.
Leichhardt is a small suburban ground, with one small grandstand on the western side and a standing room hill on the eastern side. It’s an old style venue, the type of ground the AFL abandoned during ground rationalisation in the 1980s and 1990s.
A couple of Wests Tigers member friends asked me if I was interested in going to the opening round game. With the AFL not starting until a few weeks later, I was keen. A couple of Cronulla-supporting mates were keen to come as well.
Tickets were due to go on sale on Monday, but were pulled from sale at the last minute. A phone call to the Wests Tigers club revealed the game had been declared for Tigers members only. A one-game membership was available for $65.
The Cronulla mates were told the same thing. No Wests Tigers membership, no entry to this game.
The plan to make Leichardt Oval games for members only was confirmed by Tigers boss Stephen Humphreys in The Sydney Morning Herald (link -http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/tigers-set-to-shut-doors-to-general-public-for-future-leichhardt-fixtures-20120220-1tjre.html).
Cronulla fans “can watch it on Channel Nine or Fox Sports”. Let them eat cake.
No $65 membership, no entry to stand on muddy grass for a home-and-away game. It’s a bit rich. For away fans, no entry without becoming a member of a club they don’t support. It’s a bit rich.
I can’t help thinking this is going to backfire rather spectacularly on the Tigers.
We live in competitive sporting times. There are other clubs, and other sports, that will admit to vastly superior facilities for a lot less than $65 and having your name on a membership database.
Leichhardt only holds 18,000; and I can understand why they would be worried about a sellout. But both ANZ and the Sydney Football Stadium are vacant that day. Why not move the game? Can an NRL club afford to turn people away?
And to send the message out that the Wests Tigers don’t want casual fans or away supporters at their games is a dangerous message indeed. It’s membership or nothing. That’s the message they’re sending.
But what’s going to happen when the current membership base churns? Who will take their place?
Not casual fans. They’ve been turned away, told they’re not welcome.
And to exclude away fans, unless they buy a $65 membership to a club they don’t support, is very poor form indeed.
Encouraging membership is a good thing. But to force it, to exclude anyone not willing or able to commit to the club from even casual attendance, is surely beyond the bounds of what is reasonable.
It sends the wrong message to potential supporters, driving all but the most committed away.
I’m not going. Neither are the Sharks’ fans. We know when we’re not welcome.
Just don’t bother inviting me to a Wests Tigers game again.
Passionate about your league? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily league email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- Cronulla Sharks, NRL Season 2012, Stephen Humphreys, Wests Tigers
February 22nd 2012 @ 4:58am
purple_shag said | February 22nd 2012 @ 4:58am | Report comment
Not only are they locking out their fans, they’re the hardest team to pick in the NRL. See more below. Happy Punting.
http://therestijustsquandered.com/2012/02/21/nrl-season-2012-gambling-manifesto/
February 22nd 2012 @ 7:46am
Danny Pinsuti said | February 22nd 2012 @ 7:46am | Report comment
$65 for one game? As you say, Mikey, that is a bit rich! I think the Wests Tigers are acting a fair bit upmarket of where they actually are. It is’nt a very good advertisement for the NRL.
February 22nd 2012 @ 10:24pm
Queensland's game is rugby league said | February 22nd 2012 @ 10:24pm | Report comment
The Broncos charge $70 or more for a seat in the Western and Eastern stands at Lang Park.
Can you people in Sydney now see why they only average 33,000?
February 22nd 2012 @ 8:28am
chrisc101 said | February 22nd 2012 @ 8:28am | Report comment
Seems you have missed the point entirely. This is one of the smartest things Humphreys has done (and I have by no means been a supporter of him in the past).
If members do not sellout the game, then you and your Sharkies mates will be able to buy tickets and go. And in this case, this is what will happen. However is a few years, Leichhardt will become the first ground to be sold out by memebers. It is smart because it will very quickly lift membership numbers for the club from 10,000 to 20,000.
The only drawback I see is no allowcation for away supporters which is wrong. But I am sure they will address this.
February 22nd 2012 @ 8:59am
Will Sinclair said | February 22nd 2012 @ 8:59am | Report comment
You’re right mate.
The Tigers are both a) making Tigers memberships more attractive and b) marking a Tigers game at Leichhardt Oval as a marquee event, with limited tickets.
It’s building hype around the game, and building publicity.
Very smart stuff.
February 23rd 2012 @ 1:03am
danwighton said | February 23rd 2012 @ 1:03am | Report comment
Agree 100% – Leichardt games are already pretty sought after.
Turning this into membership (which is likely to see people remain as members) is clever.
The Sharks may complain that they wont be able to attend, but any club is free to do this. Its a credit to the Tigers that they have built the popularity of the Leichardt fixtures to such an extent that they will be members only.
The move also reinforces their home ground advantage and increases their chances of winning…
February 28th 2012 @ 3:37pm
Jaredsbro said | February 28th 2012 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
But there’s the small matter (really small actually) of what happens if there isn’t a sell-out or not even close. As someone above said that’s not right and it may backfire
February 22nd 2012 @ 8:57am
Will Sinclair said | February 22nd 2012 @ 8:57am | Report comment
SMH is reporting 9,000 tickets to go on sale to the general public, including Sharks fans:
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/no-room-at-the-stadiums-clubs-struggle-to-seat-opposing-views-20120221-1tluh.html
Do the Sharks even HAVE 9,000 fans?
February 22nd 2012 @ 9:37am
Renegade said | February 22nd 2012 @ 9:37am | Report comment
Do the tigers even HAVE 18’000 members???
The crowd will be like 10’000 if they lock out everyone else.
February 22nd 2012 @ 9:53am
Marshall Magic said | February 22nd 2012 @ 9:53am | Report comment
In a few seasons every club will have more then 10,000 I believe the tigers are about to crack that mark and should have around 11 or 12,000 for this season…..
February 22nd 2012 @ 10:04am
Charlton said | February 22nd 2012 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Thank you Will…I was thinking the exact same thing.
February 22nd 2012 @ 10:38am
mds1970 said | February 22nd 2012 @ 10:38am | Report comment
Now it gets truly bizarre.
They pull tickets from the original on-sale date, push $65 single game memberships as the only way to get in, talk in the media that non-members and opposition fans won’t get in. And then it turns out that even after plenty of people had panic-bought the $65 membership (and wouldn’t you feel like a ripped off mug if you had), that they’ve sold enough memberships to fill half the ground.
It seems a bit strange to turn potential fans away and make noises about excluding people unless there’s a genuine risk that the ground could be filled entirely by home club members. In the mean time, some have made other plans, some have paid an excessive $65 to attend the game, and the message has got out that Wests Tigers don’t accept casuals and away fans to their games – which could potentially affect ticket sales for future games as well as this one.
February 22nd 2012 @ 10:40am
Will Sinclair said | February 22nd 2012 @ 10:40am | Report comment
I paid $60 for a membership with NO tickets, so I reckon those members who are getting a ticket to the Sharks game are miles ahead of me!
I don’t feel like a mug though – happy to support the club.
(I also signed up my two kids – the in-laws are trying to turn them into Parramatta Eels fans, and I really think that allowing your kids to support Parra is a form of child abuse.)
February 22nd 2012 @ 2:23pm
Nathan of Perth said | February 22nd 2012 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
“(I also signed up my two kids – the in-laws are trying to turn them into Parramatta Eels fans, and I really think that allowing your kids to support Parra is a form of child abuse.)”
Love it
February 22nd 2012 @ 9:02pm
Tom said | February 22nd 2012 @ 9:02pm | Report comment
No child abuse is when your in laws are AFL fans and trying to get them to be swans supporters rather then rugby league
February 22nd 2012 @ 9:36am
Matt F said | February 22nd 2012 @ 9:36am | Report comment
It should be pointed out that the $65 isn’t just the ticket. It also covers a bunch of the usual membership merchandise and i think it even gives a discount for generalt Tigers merchandise so for a Tigers fan it would have some value. That and Will has pointed out the remaining tickets are also open to Sharks members now as well.
In the future the NRL doesn need to look at introducing ticket allocations for away supporters.
February 22nd 2012 @ 9:49am
Marshall Magic said | February 22nd 2012 @ 9:49am | Report comment
As a tigers supporter I am very pleased to hear this news. It will make more people get off their backsides and buy memberships further increasing the clubs profits. Seeing 20,000 tigers supporters at Leichhardt and even Campbelltown is so intimidating for opposition teams and it makes an electric atmosphere for the game. Does anyone know how many tigers members there are now?
February 22nd 2012 @ 12:01pm
mds1970 said | February 22nd 2012 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
Leichhardt holds 18,000. If they’re putting 9,000 public tickets on sale; that suggests that, including the people who panic-bought the $65 single game membership, they have about 9,000 ticketed members. Maybe about 1,000 non-ticketed members would mean a total membership around the 10,000 mark.
February 22nd 2012 @ 12:57pm
Marshall Magic said | February 22nd 2012 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Last year there were 20,000 for the tigers and storm game, I have never heard of a sellout crowd of 18,000 at Leichhardt? Well i guess that goes to show that people will go through all means to watch their beloved team, I still think it is a great initiative, I do believe the membership comes with the whole membership package though including hat, bag etc etc and all the great membership benefits, and as someone else pointed out on here I believe it may include a 3 game package…
February 22nd 2012 @ 10:21am
Ken said | February 22nd 2012 @ 10:21am | Report comment
I understand your objection, you’re a casual fan locked out of the game, but I think you’re missing the wider story. The Tigers only play a few games a year at Leichardt, and these games are very popular amongst the faithful. With the membership drives of the last few years pushing on they are going to soon arrive at a situation where they have more members than seats at the old ground. At this point they can either lock out their own members or lock out opposition and casual fans. Seeing this writing on the wall they’ve gone for the 1 game membership packages as a promotional exercise, it’ll work just fine – exclusivity is a great commercial driver in this world even when it is manufactured.
The Tigers will play plenty of other games this year elsewhere when casual fans and opposition members will be welcomed with open arms. Personally I think this is the way forward in the tangle of old grounds vs modern stadiums, the historic old grounds like Leichardt, Kogarah, Belmore (on the wishlist of many Dogs fans I know) get a couple of games a year – which will basically be exclusive, sought-after events for members. The rest of the games go to the modern behemoths with their great capacities and facilities, generating big profits and open to all.
February 22nd 2012 @ 10:38am
Will Sinclair said | February 22nd 2012 @ 10:38am | Report comment
Ken – you’ve comprehensively hit the nail on the head, mate.
I think the Tigers (and the SMH report) are flagging a future date when the smaller suburban grounds are full of paying members. And that has to be a good thing, doesn’t it?
February 28th 2012 @ 3:49pm
Jaredsbro said | February 28th 2012 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
That sounds like holding someone to a ransom for mine
What about those who love Rugby League and its heritage but don’t have that kind of inflated wallet 
? You can’t just charge people for heritage’s sake…the fairest thing is to stop the everyman from going a la English Premier League all the time to encourage those who want to go to liquidate their assets.
That would be a sign of real affection for one’s club. This half-way house is giving off mixed messages…and sounds like greed or desperation or that the Tigers are failing their predominant duties that is to the community they are situated in. Better yet they can set aside one game at Leichhardt for members only, but keep some of the games at the usual price!
February 28th 2012 @ 4:01pm
Pete75 said | February 28th 2012 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
@Jadesbro
“Better yet they can set aside one game at Leichhardt for members only, but keep some of the games at the usual price!”
For what seems like the thousandth time, they aren’t “locking” anyone out. See final post on this thread….
February 22nd 2012 @ 10:51am
B.A Sports said | February 22nd 2012 @ 10:51am | Report comment
It is an interesting test of the average supporters intelligence.
As mds points out, you would be filthy if you were told the only way you could go to this game was if you bought a $65 membership and then found out you could have just bought a ticket for $15 (or whatever it is). I know there are some extra “token” merchandise you probably get for becoming a “member” but at the end of the day the club who you support have manipulated you to make more money out of you.
I generally think the Tigers do PR better than anyone else, but I think this is a pretty disrespectful way to treat your own fans.
February 22nd 2012 @ 12:44pm
Pete75 said | February 22nd 2012 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
Disagree B.A,
Nobody ever said anyone would be “locked out”. First dibs were simply given to members, as you’d expect. If you were concerned that the game would sell out, as it so often does at Leichhardt, you could buy yourself a membership and guarantee yourself a ticket. If not, you could take your chances on a general admission.
Another point that I think has been completely missed is that the Tigs are now doing a favour to Sharkies members by giving them “first crack” at tickets before a general public offering.
Surely they should be applauded for that?
February 22nd 2012 @ 11:00am
oikee said | February 22nd 2012 @ 11:00am | Report comment
That 65 dollars is a 3 game membership, or at least that is how i read it yesterday. So you pay the 65 dollars, you see 3 games and are signed on as a member, that is how i read the deal.
That sounds about right to me, standing only, not very good facilities, “excellent local ground!”, one of the last left for NRL.
February 22nd 2012 @ 11:06am
Matt F said | February 22nd 2012 @ 11:06am | Report comment
They may offer those as well but this offer was a one game membership only. However it included all the usual membership apparel (hat, keychain, merch discounts etc)
February 22nd 2012 @ 4:28pm
Al said | February 22nd 2012 @ 4:28pm | Report comment
Your right Matt, it’s a $60 stripes membership which I have bought myself and my son for the past two years, which by itself is a membership number/card and a couple of merchandise items, hat, scarf, sticker etc.. However the $65 option was an extra 5 bucks for a ticket to the opening tigers season game… 5 bucks to go to a game! Bargain! I was always going to be a member anyway! Other options for membership vary for the amount of games you get ticketed for and which games… It’s a great idea to push those fans that are indecisive about spending money on a membership, when at the end of the day they could pay half of the price of a membership just for admittance normally anyway… A little extra why the hell not!
February 22nd 2012 @ 11:01am
Matt F said | February 22nd 2012 @ 11:01am | Report comment
It’s a good thing up until a point but that’s not really a viable, long-term strategy. What if the number of members they have exceeds the capacity of the ground? Are they going to lock out (and really annoy) some members? Are they going to cap membership numbers at a certain level? It doesn’t make financial sense to turn away members.
In the long-term, if membership numbers and attendance figures, continue to grow then clubs will eventually have to move out of the smaller, suburban grounds to meet the demand of supporters and members. It would be a sad day if/when this happens but a good thing as well as it means that NRL clubs have outgrown the limited capacity of the suburban grounds. This can only be a good thing for th finances of the clubs and the competition.
February 22nd 2012 @ 11:02am
Matt F said | February 22nd 2012 @ 11:02am | Report comment
That was meant to be a reply to Will’s reply to Ken…..
February 22nd 2012 @ 11:17am
Ken said | February 22nd 2012 @ 11:17am | Report comment
You’re right it’s a sign of good health that we are out-growing these grounds. I believe there’s room for a mix of the old and new though. These old grounds have great history and it would be a shame to lose them completely. In my suggestion teams play perhaps 2 games at the boutique ground and the rest in the more modern stadia. In the circumstance you foresee, which I hope comes to pass, where there are more members than seats then the tickets to these games will become sought after. Standard memberships won’t include these games (and will be re-priced accordingly) and they’ll be special add-ons available.
On the face of it they’ll be losing potential income locking out some of the gate (and likely paying higher rent for the small ground than the large ground) but the exclusivity and buzz these games will generate would make it worthwhile. The biggest hurdle in this situation is keeping the grounds viable with only a couple of games a year but Leichardt basically does this anyway, Kogarah only does 6 a year currently and Belmore has had some re-development done even with no NRL games planned so this isn’t insurmountable.
February 22nd 2012 @ 11:33am
Matt F said | February 22nd 2012 @ 11:33am | Report comment
I don’t envisage membership numbers reaching the levels needed for clubs to seruiously consider ditching the suburban grounds for quite a while yet so it’s a long way off. You’d think they’d have to reach 20k at absolute minimum before it becomes a serious issue, probably more like 25k+. Who knows, by then these grounds could be redeveloped into 25-30k capacity stadia which could work as well.
February 22nd 2012 @ 11:55am
chrisc101 said | February 22nd 2012 @ 11:55am | Report comment
Given the way the memberships are split (and games are split), it wouldn’t really become an issue until you hit circa 35,000 memebers. If you have 5,000 memebers who have the whole 12 game package, 15,000 with Leichhardt + SFS and 15,000 with Campbelltown + SFS.
February 22nd 2012 @ 12:33pm
Matt F said | February 22nd 2012 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
Very true. It depends on the club I suppose. Clubs like Cronulla, Penrith or Manly aren’t able to really split their memberships as easily as a joint-venture club like the Tigers or Dragons. As I said, it’s a long way away.
February 22nd 2012 @ 12:18pm
Ken said | February 22nd 2012 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Well the Dragons and Souths were both up over 20k last year and expecting to go higher this year. Souths obviously are playing out of ANZ so they’ve got a bit of growth left there. The Dragons have the Kogarah/Gong split (with many ticketed members being for either one or the other) but even so will start to push Kogarah’s size in Sydney members pretty soon. The Tigers are a bit behind these two on members but the norm over the last few years has been double digit growth year on year in memberships so it might not be that far away.
While I’m all for keeping the old grounds I don’t really see significantly increasing the capacity of all of them to be a viable solution. Most of them don’t have the space or ability to handle transporting that amount of people (as a Dragons supporter Kogarah is already a nightmarish place to get to and get out of on game day). Also if you make them all look like Skilled Park/AAMI Park clones (great designs though they are), we’ll lose a lot of the attraction of the historic grounds anyway.
February 22nd 2012 @ 12:35pm
mds1970 said | February 22nd 2012 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Given that St George’s membership is bigger than Wests Tigers, and that Kogarah is smaller than Leichhardt; St George will probably hit the point of having genuine reason to exclude non-members before Wests Tigers has that problem. But St George have never hinted that day is imminent.
What this week’s stunt was all about was trying to panic people into paying $65 for this game. And that has damaged the Wests Tigers brand.
February 22nd 2012 @ 12:40pm
Matt F said | February 22nd 2012 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
It’s a possibility though very unlikely that they’ll renovate the old grounds (capacity wise at least.) It would make sense to get another stadium stadium out west with a capacity of say 40k and get everyone to play matches between there, SFS and ANZ. Even then the need for such a stadium is a long way off. It’s certainly more cost-effective then refurbishing 5-6 different grounds at some point.
As you said said, the Dragons, like the Tigers would have a lot of “split” memberships (i.e. Kogarah memberships v Gong memberships or Leichardt v Campbelltown memberships) so memberships for each ground would probably a fair bit lower.