The debate about whether or not to move regular season NRL games from suburban grounds to the ‘big two’ has come to a head once again.
Souths CEO Shane Richardson called for all Sydney clubs to abandon the parks and head to Homebush and Moore Park permanently.
There are several arguments for and against and everybody seems to have an opinion, but the answer is not so clear-cut. Lets look at the situation.
Why do it? The reasons for moving games to ANZ stadium and Allianz Stadium (Formerly the Sydney Football Stadium) are fairly obvious: much bigger capacity, better facilities, more shelter for wet weather and all the comforts of modern, world class stadiums.
All these reasons, however, lead to what is ultimately the bigger picture: higher match attendances.
The argument against the move is an entirely different one. These are based on tradition and atmosphere, which, though seemingly old-fashioned and perhaps naive, remain valid.
Everyone has a fond memory of watching their team from their traditional ground, kids kicking a footy around on the hill, so close to the action you could smell the players’ Dencorub. Atmosphere and tradition are important to footy fans.
One of the major arguments to support moving games to the can be found south of the border, where the AFL plays all its Melbourne games at either the MCG or Etihad Stadium.
By all accounts, this initiative has been a major success for the AFL, with punters eventually getting used to the abandonment of traditional grounds, and the continued growth of attendances. It is argued that copying this initiative in the NRL will have the same affect.
Unfortunately, the issue more complex than this would suggest. Comparing Sydney and Melbourne is comparing apples and oranges. On the surface it seems like a great idea, moving all games to the big stadium in the East and the one in the West. That way no-one misses out on seeing a game live, right?
In Melbourne perhaps, but Sydney is a whole different beast. Moving about Melbourne is a walk in the park compared to Sydney’s rats’ nest of roads and public transport.
A quick glance at Google Maps or the Cityrail website will show you just how arduous it can be travelling from places like Cambelltown, Penrith or Wollongong to ANZ Stadium (I’m not even going to go into folks from Cambelltown trying to get to a Tigers ‘home’ game at Allianz Stadium) and they don’t even account for traffic.
There’s also the evidence we already have. Bulldogs and Souths have been using ANZ stadium as a home ground for a number of years now. Based on crowd figures from these games so far, very few if any have exceeded the 25,000 you’d expect to find at a capacity crowd for a suburban ground.
Besides, we shouldn’t forget that a ‘healthy’ 25,000 crowd for an ANZ stadium game still means that the ground is roughly only a quarter full. This feels horrible for the people in attendance and looks even worse when watched on TV.
Besides, is it logical to assume that fans will battle it out on trains and in traffic for an hour or more to sit in an empty stadium to see their team play?
Sure the facilities are great, but is that really what draws people to a game? Grounds like ANZ can still offer great atmosphere, anyone who has been to an Origin game will attest to that, but the 60,000+ crowds required to feed this atmosphere are a long way from the average crowd of Sydney NRL teams.
Don’t get me wrong; staying at suburban grounds is not quite the answer either. Imagine a cold, wet Friday night and you’re considering heading down to Brookvale, Leichardt or Campbelltown (to name a few) Ovals to catch a game.
You’ve got the kids to worry about and the missus is not exactly the outdoors type. Oh, and everyone will want to be fed. Have you got the money to cover admission, food, and maybe a cheeky beer for yourself… and let’s not forget the parking?
An uncomfortable night sitting in the rain can be very expensive, especially since you could’ve just watched the game on TV at home and ordered a pizza.
The fact is that the NRL does have problems with attendances. This is not a reflection of the game’s popularity but it should not be ignored that healthy crowds reflect a healthy game.
However, the idea that moving all games to major stadiums is going to drive up crowd numbers is a little naïve. If this were the case then we’d see huge crowds at Bulldogs, Souths and perhaps even Roosters games.
That’s not to say that it won’t happen. In all likelihood it’s the inevitable result of the game’s evolution that one day all games will be played from two major stadiums. But before this occurs, two criteria must be met.
One, crowds should consistently exceed the maximum capacity at each and every suburban ground. Two, Sydney’s transport network should allow for fans to move easily around the city.
The main focus for the NRL should be improving the quality of certain suburban grounds, establishing a convenient mix of modern facilities with traditional atmosphere. For instance, most if not all grounds could hold 20,000 to 30,000 undercover seats and still allow for a hill at one end.
Redevelopment could include the well-loved aspects of a ground such as traditional architecture. It does not mean that a full modernisation has to occur. It may also be advantageous for the NRL to schedule more games at family-friendly times.
The most important thing is to find out why people avoid live matches, then eliminate as many of those reasons as possible.
While there are those who champion the idea of moving games and those who oppose it, the simple answer is that they are both right.
Crowds do want comfortable facilities when going to the footy, but they also want the atmosphere that TV and the big two stadiums (for now at least) can’t offer.
Once both these factors are working together I have no doubt that crowd numbers will improve. It is then and only then that we should consider moving games to higher capacity stadiums.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
We agree on that point AR.I am pro suburban grounds.And believe that if the GWS can secure fundingfor Skod,ditto the long established NRL clubs should get similar treatment. My point was simply to show where the crowds for rd 6 ,at suburban/home grounds turned out in force.The Sharks sellout.,Manly chockers yet crowd given as 14,000 odd,which has left many scratching their heads. You can stand by your point AR,but it doesn't alter the point that Souths played in front of a record home crowd for them,indicating they are growing their fan base,in a stadium that is not rectangular sport user friendly. Your second point the broncos bring few fans despite their position on the ladder.This has been the case wherever they have played in NRL premiership games in Sydney. 15,500 at Toyota based on their current facilities is in fact a good crowd and comfortable for a near full ground when playing Newcastle.It is far larger than crowds they achieved against Newcastle in the past Agsinst St George on a wet monday night the figure was 13,000,when families are hardly out in numbers.The Hawthorn game was played on monday night in a suburban ground was it????? As you like to smugly quote AFL crowds ,perhaps you might bereminded that an NRL trial in Hobart (an AFL city) had a similar number to the GWS v Nth Melbourne .In fact the trial had 11,000 paying speccies and 3,000 kids freebies.whereas the GWS massacre had 11,127. I don't know what that message sends,.except to say sometimes there are surprises in store for those who take things for granted..
Australian Rules
Guest
I suppose it's horses for courses. But I think you're missing my original point. The NRL should NOT abandon suburban grounds. Part of the reason for that is that the crowds do not justify moving to larger stadiums. Could anyone seriously argue with that? Are you just being sensitive? 1) If 35k was a record crowd for the Bunnies (with arguably the biggest supporter base), then I stand by my original point. 2) If Wests choose to play their home game against the Broncos at SFS (bc the Broncs are a high-profile, crowd-pulling club), and the stadium was just over a third full, then I stand by my original point. 3) I think the Sharks are the perfect example of why clubs shouldn't relocate to larger stadiums. By the examples you've given, the Sharks don't fill their own local stadium. The Knights game had 15.5k (with Newcastle supporters)...CC, this is a small crowd and the stadium is less than 3/4 full. Against Wests it was just over half full with 13k (on a rainy Monday...well, by way of comparison, the Hawthorn v Geelong game on Monday was freezing and raining and got 69,000). Sounds like we agree that the NRL shouldn't relocate clubs, but disagree on what is a "good crowd".
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
AR Delve a littlke deeper my friend. If you had bothered to check the crowds for rd 6 were some of the highest on record. In fact there is a dispute of the Manly crowd.The ground was chockers and a small stand was in the throes of constructiontthe crowd did not look much less than the 21,000 at the Sharks.Now I find there were problems with the turnstiles.Who knows? Quite a few fans are claiming Manly deliberately understated,which is BS. ! Do you understand , or not ,the 35,000 was the largest home crowd for a Rabbtohs match in the NRL. Since when is the Tigers and Brisbane at the SFS a local game.Gee it read it all. Try Leichardt and Campbelltown. Any case I take you to task re suburban grounds for the Sharks as an example.This year they posted 15,500 against the Knights who brought few. Last year 19,000 against the Rabbits,over 16,000 against the Tigers.13,000 last year on a miserable monday night with heavy rain against the Dragons.Sometimes it pays to check prior crowds. In fact given fine weather another close to full house is expected at Toyota next week.Meaning local griounds do have a major say for outlying clubs. Give local grounds better facilities (meaning cover) and the crowds will be there ,especially if a full season schedule is in place. And for the umpteenth time Sydney is not Melbourne ,in geography,traffic conditions,facilities for the outlying clubs and time taken to get to grounds.Despite someone ciming up with rail time tables as an argument.The trains are pretty unreliable to Brookvale...
Dan Wighton
Roar Guru
Tigers definitely have the best model - and they have to do this while maintaining a commitment to two suburban grounds as per the merger. Other clubs, such as Parra, have a bit of flexibility (ANZ stadium for matches v the Dogs and Souths). The Dragons play one game per year at the SFS for Anzac day. Souths should play out of the SFS - and considering they are in a better financial position than when they last negotiated their stadium contract, they are likely to move there when their current deal expires. But I agree that teams like Manly, one half of St George and Penrith cant realistically move their games to large stadiums and expect people to turn up.
Australian Rules
Guest
CC Your own club drew a good crowd but the rest were average. The local Sydney games were as follows: Cron v StG - 21k (in a 22,000 capacity stadium) Man v Pen - 14k (in a 23,000 stadium) W.T v Bri - 17k (in a 45,000 stadium) Sou v Bull - 35k (in a 83,500 stadium) Hardly blown into oblivion.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
AR That last commentwas blasted into oblivion with the local games in sydney last weekend,a couple at suburban grounds.
Australian Rules
Guest
Please, they don't turn up to watch their own teams...you really think they'll start rocking up to the SCG just to spite the NRL? It won't happen anyway.
Bearfax
Guest
Appreciate that you have a long way to travel, time wise including your walk. You're obviously a devoted fan. Problem with Sydney, is that unlike your major ground in the centre of Melbourne CBD (or just outside, if its Richmond), the Sydney Stadium is out west from the Sydney CBD towards Parramatta, which though population wise is becoming the centre of Sydney, is in fact in the western suburbs about 30-40 minutes from Sydney CBD where most transport systems converge Unless you have a car and travel cross country, you have to catch public ransport from your suburb into the city and then public transport out to the Stadium. Any time less than 2 hours from Dee Why for example (half way up the Northern peninsula) is a miracle. So if you lived say at Avalon, on the upper northern peninsula, you would walk to catch a bus into Wynyard, which would take about 90 minutes, then switch to a train to central, then switch to a train to Sydney Stadium (most trains heading west dont stop at the Stadium). Travel time is probably another 40-50 minutes not counting waiting time. To Moore Park, which is closer to CBD, it would be catch a train from Wynyard to Central or Museum and then switch to a bus for Moore Park. Less travel time but there's the waiting issue again. I know myself when I used to visit my dear old mum in Dee Why (she's now deceased) I would have to wait at Wynyard for up to half an hour for a connecting bus to the northern suburbs on weekends after catching a train to the city. Sydney public transport systems, though reasonably comfortable, dont link at all well, and waiting time can be very annoying (eg have waited up to 45 minutes at Wynyard for a train back home)
Queensland's Game is Rugby League
Guest
I don't recall any Aussie rules fans in Melbourne threatening to go watch rugby league. The Sydneysiders say they'll go watch the Swans if the NRL doesn't bow down to their clubs.
mds1970
Roar Guru
I live in Sydney now, but I was one of the Essendon members that voted to leave Windy Hill & go to the MCG. Windy Hill had tradition & atmosphere, and I have fond memories of the place. But the reality was that we had outgrown it; and the facilities were no longer up to professional standards. The ground only held 24,000, only half of them got a seat, and the corporate facilities were poor. It wasn't a hard decision, and the club never looked back. The Bombers subsequently moved again to Docklands when it opened; but by then I had moved to Sydney and was no longer an Essendon member, so I didn't get a vote on that one.
shirtfront
Guest
Bearfax. I'd be lying if I said I understand. But I said I travel " well over an hour" . That's a 20 minute drive to the train station "yes, I take one child with me" and 1 hour 20 mins on the train. (if anyone wants to quantify Belgrave Station to Richmond Station...) The point is, I wouldn't travel to Windy Hill if they were playing there. Sydney's stadium geographics do sound messy.
Matt
Guest
I think the Wests Tigers have by far the best model in this regard, using a mixture of boutique (Leichardt) for low drawing fixtures, the SFS for large drawing games and Campbelltown for the other third. I notice Geelong play games that would outsell their home ground at the MCG. Ultimately, you'd like to see teams like the Dragons following the Tigers model, others such as Souths and the Dogs moving lower drawing games away from ANZ and the beach teams (Manly, Cronulla and Roosters) actually being able to get decent crowds - ie once they consistently breach 20,000 for half their matches look at moving some 'big ticket' games to the larger grounds with both clubs cooperating.
Bearfax
Guest
You forget over half the Manly games are being played elsewhere not only with the away games but also games played in Gosford etc. Plenty of scope for Manly supporters living outside of the district to see them as up to half a dozen games will be played at the Stadium anyway.
Australian Rules
Guest
QGIRL You clearly don't know what you're talking about here. There was uproar when the Melbourne clubs left their traditional homes. The suburban grounds down in Melbourne had far more history attached to them than the NRL grounds, and they were the heartbeat of the tightknit communities they represented. Egs: Richmond's Punt Road Oval opened in 1856 Essendon's Windy Hill in 1881 Collingwood's Victoria Park opened in 1892 Yes, people recognised the need to switch as the league became more professional and grew too big for the suburban grounds. Ultimately, it's been a healthy move for the Melbourne clubs and the AFL as well. ...but to say the fans "didn't care too much" is simply an uninformed statement. For the record, it would be a disaster for the NRL to do the same. Crowds aren't big enough to justify it.
Queensland's Game is Rugby League
Guest
There will always be people against change. In the case of the AFL it seems as if the people who are against ground rationalisation are a very small minority. The crowds for the clubs have grown since the days of ground rationalisation.
amazonfan
Guest
That's not true. While fans of Melbourne AFL clubs accepted it when suburban grounds were disused, many were (and are) extremely unhappy about it.
Queensland's Game is Rugby League
Guest
Look AFL and NRL teams in Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane aren't traditional teams, but they draw good attendances to their matches. The fans of the AFL clubs in Melbourne didn't care too much when the suburban grounds were disused.
JonD
Guest
It all depends on where you want the team supporter bases to come from. The suburban grounds are easily accessible from the traditional geographic supporter base of the teams but difficult to access from basically everywhere else. Manly could theoretically widen their supporter base to the whole of north sydney but brookvale oval is basically impossibl to get to unless you live in or near manly. Same with all the other teams. Moving to bigger more centralised stadiums would allow supporters from outside the traditional gographic boundaries to support the teams. In theory this should lead to bigger crowds. So waiting for higher attendances in the suburban grounds before moving isn't thw correct approach. Although I agree with your arguments about the dificulties of moving around Sydney.
Epiquin
Guest
How can you possibly back that statement up?
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Suggest you be a the game last night at Toyota Park,sellout 21,380 ,local derby.Atmosphere incomparable,game edge of seat stuff,and try to replicate the same game at theANZ and SFS kms away barttling ordianry traffic condtions on a saturady night. Give the locals better stadiums and comfort and crowds of 20,000 will be the norm not the exception.