Sorry to be blunt, but of course there's no correlation between home grounds and membership. And, in the case of WT, they offer membership packages for particular grounds such as LO and CSS anyway. This may inflate the "genuine" WT member numbers across those sad old lines of Balmain v Wests Magpies. Anything offered by WT Media in the age of this inept CEO/Chair/Board should be seen for what it is; a smokescreen for the inherent mediocrity they have provided.If I was the CEO I would be focussed on providing Wests Tigers fans, staff and players the best possible game day experience with the best possible facilities.
Problem is, that comes down to what people value in their game day experience.
It’s those 360k odd fans that aren’t members I’d be targeting and the means a modern stadium like the SFS to attract those non-members to become members.
100% this. The rusted on fans would be happy watching with a sausage sanga and a tinny at Prattan park. It’s the next generation we need to cater to
Genuine question, when was the last time you went to a game at LO? The Hill is not full of old fossils like me, they are all sitting in the stand or Concourse. The Hill is full of the next generation. Afternoon games at leichhardt have become a cultural thing for younger fans, a step up from games at Henson. It is a complete fallacy that LO fans are all old Balmain dinosaurs. More hipsters than dinosaurs and they are loving the LO experience for the same reasons that the Dinosaurs loved it in the 80's. Are these people not entitled?
The problem with LO is that there is a genuine question mark over whether it is even safe to host a first grade game from any code.
What we need to be looking at from a strategic growth point of view is how can we grow the memberships to a level where we are up there with the benchmark Sydney teams, Souths and Parra, in terms of membership numbers and we simply can't do this at LO or CSS.
And yet the Roosters have less members than us despite long term success and playing out of the SFS, the same ground that Souffs are trying to play out of. Pamfers roughly the same members as us will massive success and playing out of a 20K suburban ground. Dogs have significantly less members than us, with similar on field success and playing out of the big stadia.
Its almost like there is no correlation between membership and home grounds.......
That is my whole point. There is no correlation between home grounds and membership.
I also agree that the different packages more than likely inflate our overall membership numbers but the point made by others in this thread is that we need to be "up there with the benchmark Sydney teams Souths and Parra" and that we cant do this from LO & CSS. if we are going to compare with Souths and Parra then compare. Tigers offer 14 membership packages, Souffs offer 12, both offer pet membership and other pointless categories.
My point being, there is no correlation between home grounds and memberships and its not a valid argument to move to SFS.
Sorry to be blunt, but of course there's no correlation between home grounds and membership. And, in the case of WT, they offer membership packages for particular grounds such as LO and CSS anyway. This may inflate the "genuine" WT member numbers across those sad old lines of Balmain v Wests Magpies. Anything offered by WT Media in the age of this inept CEO/Chair/Board should be seen for what it is; a smokescreen for the inherent mediocrity they have provided.If I was the CEO I would be focussed on providing Wests Tigers fans, staff and players the best possible game day experience with the best possible facilities.
Problem is, that comes down to what people value in their game day experience.
It’s those 360k odd fans that aren’t members I’d be targeting and the means a modern stadium like the SFS to attract those non-members to become members.
100% this. The rusted on fans would be happy watching with a sausage sanga and a tinny at Prattan park. It’s the next generation we need to cater to
Genuine question, when was the last time you went to a game at LO? The Hill is not full of old fossils like me, they are all sitting in the stand or Concourse. The Hill is full of the next generation. Afternoon games at leichhardt have become a cultural thing for younger fans, a step up from games at Henson. It is a complete fallacy that LO fans are all old Balmain dinosaurs. More hipsters than dinosaurs and they are loving the LO experience for the same reasons that the Dinosaurs loved it in the 80's. Are these people not entitled?
The problem with LO is that there is a genuine question mark over whether it is even safe to host a first grade game from any code.
What we need to be looking at from a strategic growth point of view is how can we grow the memberships to a level where we are up there with the benchmark Sydney teams, Souths and Parra, in terms of membership numbers and we simply can't do this at LO or CSS.
And yet the Roosters have less members than us despite long term success and playing out of the SFS, the same ground that Souffs are trying to play out of. Pamfers roughly the same members as us will massive success and playing out of a 20K suburban ground. Dogs have significantly less members than us, with similar on field success and playing out of the big stadia.
Its almost like there is no correlation between membership and home grounds.......
That is my whole point. There is no correlation between home grounds and membership.
I also agree that the different packages more than likely inflate our overall membership numbers but the point made by others in this thread is that we need to be "up there with the benchmark Sydney teams Souths and Parra" and that we cant do this from LO & CSS. if we are going to compare with Souths and Parra then compare. Tigers offer 14 membership packages, Souffs offer 12, both offer pet membership and other pointless categories.
My point being, there is no correlation between home grounds and memberships and its not a valid argument to move to SFS.
Sure it is. LO hasn’t really changed, apart from changing to north-south playing field, since the ‘60s & ‘70s when I was playing my junior football there. The facilities are atrocious and always have been. Is this really good enough for the 21st century. I think not. Members need a modern stadium no ifs and buts. LO & CSS just don’t cut it and haven’t for a very long time. Why should members accept mediocrity, well they shouldn’t have to. But mediocrity is the Wests Tigers way, but if they really want to be a powerhouse then that has to change.
I’m not really expecting anything to change with the current governance of the organisation, but it should. Mediocrity should never be acceptable.
Sorry to be blunt, but of course there's no correlation between home grounds and membership. And, in the case of WT, they offer membership packages for particular grounds such as LO and CSS anyway. This may inflate the "genuine" WT member numbers across those sad old lines of Balmain v Wests Magpies. Anything offered by WT Media in the age of this inept CEO/Chair/Board should be seen for what it is; a smokescreen for the inherent mediocrity they have provided.If I was the CEO I would be focussed on providing Wests Tigers fans, staff and players the best possible game day experience with the best possible facilities.
Problem is, that comes down to what people value in their game day experience.
It’s those 360k odd fans that aren’t members I’d be targeting and the means a modern stadium like the SFS to attract those non-members to become members.
100% this. The rusted on fans would be happy watching with a sausage sanga and a tinny at Prattan park. It’s the next generation we need to cater to
Genuine question, when was the last time you went to a game at LO? The Hill is not full of old fossils like me, they are all sitting in the stand or Concourse. The Hill is full of the next generation. Afternoon games at leichhardt have become a cultural thing for younger fans, a step up from games at Henson. It is a complete fallacy that LO fans are all old Balmain dinosaurs. More hipsters than dinosaurs and they are loving the LO experience for the same reasons that the Dinosaurs loved it in the 80's. Are these people not entitled?
The problem with LO is that there is a genuine question mark over whether it is even safe to host a first grade game from any code.
What we need to be looking at from a strategic growth point of view is how can we grow the memberships to a level where we are up there with the benchmark Sydney teams, Souths and Parra, in terms of membership numbers and we simply can't do this at LO or CSS.
And yet the Roosters have less members than us despite long term success and playing out of the SFS, the same ground that Souffs are trying to play out of. Pamfers roughly the same members as us will massive success and playing out of a 20K suburban ground. Dogs have significantly less members than us, with similar on field success and playing out of the big stadia.
Its almost like there is no correlation between membership and home grounds.......
That is my whole point. There is no correlation between home grounds and membership.
I also agree that the different packages more than likely inflate our overall membership numbers but the point made by others in this thread is that we need to be "up there with the benchmark Sydney teams Souths and Parra" and that we cant do this from LO & CSS. if we are going to compare with Souths and Parra then compare. Tigers offer 14 membership packages, Souffs offer 12, both offer pet membership and other pointless categories.
My point being, there is no correlation between home grounds and memberships and its not a valid argument to move to SFS.
Sure it is. LO hasn’t really changed, apart from changing to north-south playing field, since the ‘60s & ‘70s when I was playing my junior football there. The facilities are atrocious and always have been. Is this really good enough for the 21st century. I think not. Members need a modern stadium no ifs and buts. LO & CSS just don’t cut it and haven’t for a very long time. Why should members accept mediocrity, well they shouldn’t have to. But mediocrity is the Wests Tigers way, but if they really want to be a powerhouse then that has to change.
I’m not really expecting anything to change with the current governance of the organisation, but it should. Mediocrity should never be acceptable.
Mike that is a different argument. Clearly that is your opinion and you are very entitled to it, and there is solid logic to it. LO is old and compared to the new SFS no comparison with regards to facilities at all. That argument is incredibly solid despite my disagreement.
The argument that we are addressing though is the assertion that moving to SFS would increase membership. I dont think in the short term it would and IMO on its own (in the absence of on field success) it will not contribute to medium or long term increase in members numbers.
Sorry to be blunt, but of course there's no correlation between home grounds and membership. And, in the case of WT, they offer membership packages for particular grounds such as LO and CSS anyway. This may inflate the "genuine" WT member numbers across those sad old lines of Balmain v Wests Magpies. Anything offered by WT Media in the age of this inept CEO/Chair/Board should be seen for what it is; a smokescreen for the inherent mediocrity they have provided.If I was the CEO I would be focussed on providing Wests Tigers fans, staff and players the best possible game day experience with the best possible facilities.
Problem is, that comes down to what people value in their game day experience.
It’s those 360k odd fans that aren’t members I’d be targeting and the means a modern stadium like the SFS to attract those non-members to become members.
100% this. The rusted on fans would be happy watching with a sausage sanga and a tinny at Prattan park. It’s the next generation we need to cater to
Genuine question, when was the last time you went to a game at LO? The Hill is not full of old fossils like me, they are all sitting in the stand or Concourse. The Hill is full of the next generation. Afternoon games at leichhardt have become a cultural thing for younger fans, a step up from games at Henson. It is a complete fallacy that LO fans are all old Balmain dinosaurs. More hipsters than dinosaurs and they are loving the LO experience for the same reasons that the Dinosaurs loved it in the 80's. Are these people not entitled?
The problem with LO is that there is a genuine question mark over whether it is even safe to host a first grade game from any code.
What we need to be looking at from a strategic growth point of view is how can we grow the memberships to a level where we are up there with the benchmark Sydney teams, Souths and Parra, in terms of membership numbers and we simply can't do this at LO or CSS.
And yet the Roosters have less members than us despite long term success and playing out of the SFS, the same ground that Souffs are trying to play out of. Pamfers roughly the same members as us will massive success and playing out of a 20K suburban ground. Dogs have significantly less members than us, with similar on field success and playing out of the big stadia.
Its almost like there is no correlation between membership and home grounds.......
That is my whole point. There is no correlation between home grounds and membership.
I also agree that the different packages more than likely inflate our overall membership numbers but the point made by others in this thread is that we need to be "up there with the benchmark Sydney teams Souths and Parra" and that we cant do this from LO & CSS. if we are going to compare with Souths and Parra then compare. Tigers offer 14 membership packages, Souffs offer 12, both offer pet membership and other pointless categories.
My point being, there is no correlation between home grounds and memberships and its not a valid argument to move to SFS.
Sure it is. LO hasn’t really changed, apart from changing to north-south playing field, since the ‘60s & ‘70s when I was playing my junior football there. The facilities are atrocious and always have been. Is this really good enough for the 21st century. I think not. Members need a modern stadium no ifs and buts. LO & CSS just don’t cut it and haven’t for a very long time. Why should members accept mediocrity, well they shouldn’t have to. But mediocrity is the Wests Tigers way, but if they really want to be a powerhouse then that has to change.
I’m not really expecting anything to change with the current governance of the organisation, but it should. Mediocrity should never be acceptable.
Mike that is a different argument. Clearly that is your opinion and you are very entitled to it, and there is solid logic to it. LO is old and compared to the new SFS no comparison with regards to facilities at all. That argument is incredibly solid despite my disagreement.
The argument that we are addressing though is the assertion that moving to SFS would increase membership. I dont think in the short term it would and IMO on its own (in the absence of on field success) it will not contribute to medium or long term increase in members numbers.
Well of course I disagree. It’s all tied together. It’s how the club presents itself to the public. Now the COE is a huge change, and Pascoe should be applauded for that, but the fans don’t use it, it’s for the players and staff. The members and public are left with substandard facilities. You may not think it deters potential members but I can assure it does, big time. While I agree winning matches would also boost membership it soon comes unstuck when you need to go to the loo, have reasonable seating or get a decent feed at these grounds. And let’s not even mention what happens when it rains.
Sorry to be blunt, but of course there's no correlation between home grounds and membership. And, in the case of WT, they offer membership packages for particular grounds such as LO and CSS anyway. This may inflate the "genuine" WT member numbers across those sad old lines of Balmain v Wests Magpies. Anything offered by WT Media in the age of this inept CEO/Chair/Board should be seen for what it is; a smokescreen for the inherent mediocrity they have provided.If I was the CEO I would be focussed on providing Wests Tigers fans, staff and players the best possible game day experience with the best possible facilities.
Problem is, that comes down to what people value in their game day experience.
It’s those 360k odd fans that aren’t members I’d be targeting and the means a modern stadium like the SFS to attract those non-members to become members.
100% this. The rusted on fans would be happy watching with a sausage sanga and a tinny at Prattan park. It’s the next generation we need to cater to
Genuine question, when was the last time you went to a game at LO? The Hill is not full of old fossils like me, they are all sitting in the stand or Concourse. The Hill is full of the next generation. Afternoon games at leichhardt have become a cultural thing for younger fans, a step up from games at Henson. It is a complete fallacy that LO fans are all old Balmain dinosaurs. More hipsters than dinosaurs and they are loving the LO experience for the same reasons that the Dinosaurs loved it in the 80's. Are these people not entitled?
The problem with LO is that there is a genuine question mark over whether it is even safe to host a first grade game from any code.
What we need to be looking at from a strategic growth point of view is how can we grow the memberships to a level where we are up there with the benchmark Sydney teams, Souths and Parra, in terms of membership numbers and we simply can't do this at LO or CSS.
And yet the Roosters have less members than us despite long term success and playing out of the SFS, the same ground that Souffs are trying to play out of. Pamfers roughly the same members as us will massive success and playing out of a 20K suburban ground. Dogs have significantly less members than us, with similar on field success and playing out of the big stadia.
Its almost like there is no correlation between membership and home grounds.......
That is my whole point. There is no correlation between home grounds and membership.
I also agree that the different packages more than likely inflate our overall membership numbers but the point made by others in this thread is that we need to be "up there with the benchmark Sydney teams Souths and Parra" and that we cant do this from LO & CSS. if we are going to compare with Souths and Parra then compare. Tigers offer 14 membership packages, Souffs offer 12, both offer pet membership and other pointless categories.
My point being, there is no correlation between home grounds and memberships and its not a valid argument to move to SFS.
Sure it is. LO hasn’t really changed, apart from changing to north-south playing field, since the ‘60s & ‘70s when I was playing my junior football there. The facilities are atrocious and always have been. Is this really good enough for the 21st century. I think not. Members need a modern stadium no ifs and buts. LO & CSS just don’t cut it and haven’t for a very long time. Why should members accept mediocrity, well they shouldn’t have to. But mediocrity is the Wests Tigers way, but if they really want to be a powerhouse then that has to change.
I’m not really expecting anything to change with the current governance of the organisation, but it should. Mediocrity should never be acceptable.
Mike that is a different argument. Clearly that is your opinion and you are very entitled to it, and there is solid logic to it. LO is old and compared to the new SFS no comparison with regards to facilities at all. That argument is incredibly solid despite my disagreement.
The argument that we are addressing though is the assertion that moving to SFS would increase membership. I dont think in the short term it would and IMO on its own (in the absence of on field success) it will not contribute to medium or long term increase in members numbers.
Well of course I disagree. It’s all tied together. It’s how the club presents itself to the public. Now the COE is a huge change, and Pascoe should be applauded for that, but the fans don’t use it, it’s for the players and staff. The members and public are left with substandard facilities. You may not think it deters potential members but I can assure it does, big time. While I agree winning matches would also boost membership it soon comes unstuck when you need to go to the loo, have reasonable seating or get a decent feed at these grounds. And let’s not even mention what happens when it rains.
Im sure that LO & CSS may deter some members. I am also sure that LO & CSS attracts some members. Both of these things are IMO undeniable. IMO we have to look at why we have such relatively high membership numbers (beyond possible inflation due to package catagories) with such a rubbish team and as I said before its purely tradition/nostalgia/tribalism and currently LO & CSS play into that completely.
IMO this decision is not black and white. I dont think we can afford to totally abandon LO & CSS at the moment but I can also see that once we are a regular top 4 team and an NRL powerhouse then 20K grounds will not make sense other than the odd out of town game.
If I was the CEO I would be focussed on providing Wests Tigers fans, staff and players the best possible game day experience with the best possible facilities.
Problem is, that comes down to what people value in their game day experience.
It’s those 360k odd fans that aren’t members I’d be targeting and the means a modern stadium like the SFS to attract those non-members to become members.
100% this. The rusted on fans would be happy watching with a sausage sanga and a tinny at Prattan park. It’s the next generation we need to cater to
Genuine question, when was the last time you went to a game at LO? The Hill is not full of old fossils like me, they are all sitting in the stand or Concourse. The Hill is full of the next generation. Afternoon games at leichhardt have become a cultural thing for younger fans, a step up from games at Henson. It is a complete fallacy that LO fans are all old Balmain dinosaurs. More hipsters than dinosaurs and they are loving the LO experience for the same reasons that the Dinosaurs loved it in the 80's. Are these people not entitled?
went twice last year. The hill was mostly full of young adults canning on. There were kids there for sure but it was largely dudes getting pissed. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for a bit of that but it really needs options that are more family friendly so the young ones can go and enjoy themselves and people can feel that it’s a family friendly event. That’s what I mean by the next generation. What members tickets are left available for new members are without shelter. It’s great but it is literally unchanged since I went as a kid in the 1980s.
https://www.nsw.gov.au/media-releases/11-million-commitment-for-north-sydney-oval
Has Labor announced any planned funding for either ground? It appears the Libs aren’t interested in our traditional grounds.
Wests Tigers Podcast - Talking everything Wests Tigers!
@helmesy who will be using North Sydney oval, no nrl side unless bears come back ?
@helmesy who will be using North Sydney oval, no nrl side unless bears come back ?
Cricket, local sports and the Bears NSW Cup. Clearly there is some political agenda in regards to that funding announcement (which is almost always the case).
Wests Tigers Podcast - Talking everything Wests Tigers!
@helmesy hopefully Minns throws something at LO and CSS.I kind of think in a few years homebush redevelopment will be back on the cards and we will just slot in to tenants there
- @jedi-tiger There is no way that will happen .. after committing money he has promised the kitty will be dry . Accor stadium will never be touch under the ALP.
Stuart Ayres looks like he has lost his Penrith seat. I wonder if the new Penrith Stadium will be cancelled and the monies used on more needy suburban grounds?
@mike If the money comes available all of it needs to be spent on ACCOR stadium .. it can rise from the ashes to become the go to stadium for the rectangular sports codes ! Suburban grounds are a thing of the past …
It’s interesting, not sure how the politics works but Wollongong and Campbelltown are safe Labor, but Penrith and northern beaches have just moved marginal Labor from liberal. On the one hand you would assume that Labor would support their electorates but on the other they presumably would anger a lot of people in Penrith if they backed out of the total rebuild there. Distributing the money across multiple suburban stadiums maybe makes the most electoral sense? That way Penrith gets a decent upgrade without building a monster stadium there for 1 team
