The reality of rugby league's romanticised suburban grounds

Plenty of knives in the back of other clubs

Oh dear, I though we'd cleared this up. MCG capacity is 100k - no EPL ground has 100k capacity. If Collingwood and other top drawing sides played in Stadiums the size of Man City (47k) then they would be at 97-98% capacity as well. I also did add the proviso that if the EPL grounds were bigger, then they might fill them as well - but they are not bigger, some are around the 20k capacity, so I couldn't see those grounds getting 97% capacity if they were increased to 100k.

Nine are going to bid for the next AFL rights. It was on 2GB last night.

150k each year isn't that much for capital upgrades and each year that goes by the cost increases - tough call for the council - they also have to think about upgrades for the Rugby ground and Manly tennis club, which has a large number of courts.

Good luck with that old fella

AR, You just don't see past your own lofty view of yourself. Stop trolling & you may get as SVB points out what I was trying to say. But because I've lived in Manchester and would know more about its rich, varied & wide sporting fabric wouldn't make a difference to you as you seem to think you know everything. Clipper, in a previous life I dealt with both City & Emirates in the entertainment industry and I always have those configurations in my head (because I'd be on the computer all night trawling for info) for the music industry. My fault but hey. But these clubs along with the Gunners have around 97-98% capacity. I'd be interested in the MCG percentage of attendances to capacity AFL games attract during the 2014 season?

As opposed to you who still trolls lies.

Those clubs such as St George and the Tigers can increase the number of games at ANZ/SFS.However bear in mind Souths,the Dogs play just about every home game there ANZ.The Tigers and Parra play a percentage. S15 Tahs play their home games at the SFS.Even a semi SFC play all their home games at the SFS Tests for union and soccer at either venue. SOO at least one. Even cricket big bash. It's not as if the stadiums in question don't get a lot of usage.Nor is it suggested that these stadiums are for rl usage only.The Govt would surely understand there is heavy demand to date on the grounds.Of course they want to further maximise usage,but practicalities should also come into the equation. It's not just the NRL's call.Smith has alluded to the fact clubs will not be forced.If those outlying clubs do not show planbs to improve infrastructure the yes,they can wield the big stick. Especially as the Govt is talking about a third stadium in the west to cater for the likes of Penrith/Parra/WSW/Tigers. Because Penrith/Manly and Sharks continue to play at their local grounds due to distance /time factors,,I suggest it is hardly going to mean the Govt stating " we won't improve central stadiums". The Premier's old man was a long time resident of the Shire. The other point to be noted,clubs are being pushed by the NRL to play at least one home game in regional /interstate venues fro promotional work.Hence the Panthers v Sharks at Bathurst. Unless road infrastructure is improved dramatically,the Govt is whistling in the wind with expectations on outlying clubs.Maybe the SFS is better positioned geographically and transport wise,but parking is a nightmare at times. Where I can see some possibilities is getting rid of MNF and having more Sunday arvo games.Cronulla v St George on a Monday night at ANZ would draw about 6,000 ,locally up to 20,000 on current analysis.On a sunday afternoon who knows.

And if some more clubs don't make the commitment to move to new stadiums like Anz or Allianz then the government would think twice about upgrading these two stadiums. Stadiums need tenants to make things viable. It's the NRLs call.

Of course they(outlying clubs) will be playing in the suburbs in a decade.Sydney's transport set up will not be improved in 20 years,based on their current rate of works.. Not hyperbole the reality of the situation.The Spit Bridge will remain a bottle neck,The Harbour bridge and surrounds ditto.The F6 will still be in the planning stage,and it will still take forever to get to Penrith.And the roads leading to ANZ wil still be the saem old slow road to China. The NRL have stated they will not force clubs to move,that is not hyperbole.Telling us nothing new.

Hyperbole - they will be playing in the suburbs in a decade but welcome to move them...

It is fair to suggest centralisation of stadiums is a fait accompli from both an NRL and State Govt perspective.. The Herald back in Dec 9 th 2012.published an article under the heading "Sun setting on suburban stadiums." However the salient points still revolved around suburban grounds .Here are a couple of extracts. Gould"Would a move to increase the Panther's membership significantly? I'd have to be convinced that would happen.We''ve go to go down the line of whatever strategy they've got for a third stadium." Crosstown rivals Cronulla are in a unique situation in that they own their own stadium.The Sharks chairman Damien Irvine (remembering 2012) outlines their long term strategy,estimated to take about 9 years to complete,as redeveloping Toyota Stadium into a "world =leading boutique ground for 22,000-23,000 seat stadium" . Our master plan prior to the stadium's strategy was to improve the stadium but,on commercial terms,it was never about relying soley on handouts and govt grants." In effect suburban grounds( provided the clubs involved )will continue to operate from their venues,but only if they are able to bring them up to 21st century standards expected.Cronulla are at least preparing for the inevitable. And the other point well argued ,transport and roads need to be brought up to the demands of a modern Sydney,with its inherent traffic problems.Else one cannot and it will not happen , for fans from these outlying clubs to spend 1-2 hours travelling to a venue just to get there and repeat the performance on return every fortnight,under the current debacle that Sydney traffic is. And for people to continually use Melbourne as an example of what can happen,it from a traffic ,road/rail system & topography perspective leaves Sydney for dead. I also might point out,Monday night football came into being in 2007.In 2005 the NRL crowds were at record levels .One has to question the impact of MNF,on crowds.Looking at the Dragons v Manly game on Monday night,two observations.Few families in the crowd.Few Manly supporters .Game starts around 7pm.One doesn't have to be a genuius to figure out reasons. I cannot see big improvement in crowd numbers whilst MNF exists.Hence the reason for in future relying less on Tv revenues,where they( ch9/Fox )dictate schedules.

If they were going to inflate knowing the Govt has no intention of funding suburban grounds,the whole fudging exercise would be futile. The NRL or at least Smith has stated fudging of crowds would not be tolerated.Suggesting clubs are playing with fire if they get caught out.

People love winners. Really the top half of all football codes should pull decent crowds at this time of a season. I'm sure if parramatta were in the top 4, their crowds would be substantial. It's clubs like manly, Penrith, roosters, who have onfield success but don't get people through the gate. Some suburban grounds are probably inflating the attendance figures to try and secure more funding. This hyping up of official crowd numbers can happen in all codes but it is the opinion of many that it happens a lot in the NRL. How about some independent auditing of crowd numbers at the suburban grounds and the results released publicly before money is spent.

I wonder how Demons, St Kilda, Footscray fans feel about the Swans fortunes? The perception that AFL is "kicking goals" in Sydney and RL heartland seems to be the biggest and only priority in the AFL.

Yes, I think CT should steer clear on commenting on the EPL - just a day or so ago saying that EPL fills up more of their grounds than the AFL - when I informed him that none of the grounds have MCG capacity, he tried telling me that Arsenal had 80,000 capacity and Man City had 60,000 capacity, which was not correct Man U and Man City are two of the biggest clubs in the world owned by companies or guys with very deep pockets and attract countless millions in merchandising alone, so completely different story.

Fair enough - I read your reference to "McStadiums" in Melbourne as a dig at the G. I don't agree with your point, but see where your coming from.

Reason being .Top of the ladder,For a state of close to 7 million they should be 30,000 plus.