2023 NRL Finals Week 1 - Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks vs Sydney Roosters, 7:50pm Saturday 9th September @ PointsBet Stadium

HaroldBishop

Megalodon
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
55,507
Reaction score
8,396
Location
Sydney
Yeah, the stats really can't rate a mention. As far as I can tell we've only played 3 home finals at Shark Park for 2 wins and a loss.
Away finals we are one win for 8 losses. Finals at big Sydney stadiums are about 50/50 but I didn't really look at whether we were home or away in these as I don't think it matters.

So really as above, it goes back to what the team think will help them the best.
Yeah since 2000 that looks to be right.

Sine 2000 we've played 26 finals for 9 wins and 17 losses.

No issue at all with doing what the team thinks is right if that's the rule.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
8,580
Reaction score
2,883
Yeah since 2000 that looks to be right.

Sine 2000 we've played 26 finals for 9 wins and 17 losses.

No issue at all with doing what the team thinks is right if that's the rule.
The best workaround for me would be letting Cronulla move it for a % of gate takings above capacity. Also fixing the buying process so Sharks members get 24 hours to fill out the stadium before the opposition gets a crack, and not reserving tickets for them or the general public outside a small away bay.

So if our capacity was 12k, and we get 30k at Allianz, we might get 50% of the extra profit from 18k fans.
 

apezza

Great White
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,731
Reaction score
2,498
Under the rules, it isn't.

It's about giving those finishing higher an equal advantage in the first round. I'm fine with it. I guarantee you we don't get 30k this week at Allianz or Commbank, and the clubs don't make any cash from it. So we literally are giving up a home-ground advantage to allow a few more Roosters fans to attend. This also comes about as they don't want to take finals away from places like Canberra and NQL.

I can kinda get the argument of us not being able to host with a reduced capacity/during construction, but outside of that I don't buy into it.
Wouldn't suprise me if they change the rules after the new Panthers Stadium is built so only our ground won't meet the requirements.
 

HaroldBishop

Megalodon
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
55,507
Reaction score
8,396
Location
Sydney
The best workaround for me would be letting Cronulla move it for a % of gate takings above capacity. Also fixing the buying process so Sharks members get 24 hours to fill out the stadium before the opposition gets a crack, and not reserving tickets for them or the general public outside a small away bay.

So if our capacity was 12k, and we get 30k at Allianz, we might get 50% of the extra profit from 18k fans.
Yep I like that, very fair.

The bold bit in particular should be happening now for every single final, it boggles my mind that it doesn't now.
 

Super Impose

Great White
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
4,728
Reaction score
783
Location
The Hill
Wouldn't suprise me if they change the rules after the new Panthers Stadium is built so only our ground won't meet the requirements.
I think the new stadium has been knocked on the head - they are only getting some improvements now to the existing one ..
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
8,580
Reaction score
2,883
I think the new stadium has been knocked on the head - they are only getting some improvements now to the existing one ..
There was still 300m set aside wasn't there? That should help them increase the capacity a bit I'd think.
 

CrazyMatt

Jaws
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
23,294
Reaction score
3,052
Location
Colyton, Sydney
The best workaround for me would be letting Cronulla move it for a % of gate takings above capacity. Also fixing the buying process so Sharks members get 24 hours to fill out the stadium before the opposition gets a crack, and not reserving tickets for them or the general public outside a small away bay.

So if our capacity was 12k, and we get 30k at Allianz, we might get 50% of the extra profit from 18k fans.

To me thats not good enough to negate the advantage of playing at our home ground. Im sorry people (including myself) miss out but this **** happens in English football all the time and no one complains.

The players earned the right and they should be able to play at home.
 

Super Impose

Great White
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
4,728
Reaction score
783
Location
The Hill
There was still 300m set aside wasn't there? That should help them increase the capacity a bit I'd think.
Yeah it will improve the ground no doubt -but when they replace the hills with seats - I’m not sure the capacity will increase - definitely the comfort level for the punters ..
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
8,580
Reaction score
2,883
To me thats not good enough to negate the advantage of playing at our home ground. Im sorry people (including myself) miss out but this **** happens in English football all the time and no one complains.

The players earned the right and they should be able to play at home.
Completely agree, but at least it presents a case for moving. Right now, we literally have no reason why we'd bother. We'd lose the advantage just to make the NRL more cash.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
8,580
Reaction score
2,883
Yeah it will improve the ground no doubt -but when they replace the hills with seats - I’m not sure the capacity will increase - definitely the comfort level for the punters ..
Yeah no clue without seeing the proposal.
 

apezza

Great White
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,731
Reaction score
2,498
Yeah I think the level of funding is the same, the cost of the proposed new stadium blew out and Labor said no more funding on top of 300m.
I'm pretty sure that said the stadium won't change much. It just means the surrounding grounds and other bits and pieces that were going to get upgraded have been scrapped.
 

MrDravid

Great White
Joined
Apr 11, 2022
Messages
2,581
Reaction score
1,397
The best workaround for me would be letting Cronulla move it for a % of gate takings above capacity. Also fixing the buying process so Sharks members get 24 hours to fill out the stadium before the opposition gets a crack, and not reserving tickets for them or the general public outside a small away bay.

So if our capacity was 12k, and we get 30k at Allianz, we might get 50% of the extra profit from 18k fans.
Don't the NRL get 100% of the gate regardless of where it's played?
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
8,580
Reaction score
2,883
Don't the NRL get 100% of the gate regardless of where it's played?
Yeah they do. My point was that under this set up we have no incentive to move. If we were offered some % to move it, the club would have more reason to do so.
 

HaroldBishop

Megalodon
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
55,507
Reaction score
8,396
Location
Sydney
To me thats not good enough to negate the advantage of playing at our home ground. Im sorry people (including myself) miss out but this **** happens in English football all the time and no one complains.

The players earned the right and they should be able to play at home.
What advantage? At home Shark Park this year we've won 6 and lost 5, that's a terrible record.

I'm not disputing for a second the club's choice to hold at home, thems the rules and as @Proud Shark has said there is zero incentive to move it. But let's be honest, our home ground is not a fortress by any stretch.
 
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
9,006
Reaction score
912
Location
Sydney
What advantage? At home Shark Park this year we've won 6 and lost 5, that's a terrible record.

I'm not disputing for a second the club's choice to hold at home, thems the rules and as @Proud Shark has said there is zero incentive to move it. But let's be honest, our home ground is not a fortress by any stretch.
lol

And whats our record at the other proposed grounds.

It's still our home ground, it's still our preferred place to play. Its where we train each day.
 
Top