nadera78

Coach
  • Content count

    2,224
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,307 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

5,295 profile views
  1. As with most things, Branson got involved because it promoted his wider business interests. He started with a small stake in the club because of the World Club Championship, which that year included every SL club and coincided with the launch of his airline in Australia. So he saw an opportunity. Then he took over completely, with Barry Maranta wanting to return to his normal life in Brisbane, threw some money at signing players, and expected people to flock to games simply because. When that failed he walked away. It's essentially the same business model the club has followed ever since: assemble a team, put on a game, expect people to turn up, find yourself disappointed. Repeat ad infinitum. As to crowds, at one point the club had a hardcore of about 2,500. And another group of about 2,500 who would got to games as and when they felt like it. But you'd rarely get all 5,000 of them together at any one game.
  2. Why would a rugby league fan celebrate this?
  3. Ward's been using Cunningham in the halves for a while now, he gives more control than the other options. It works, to an extent, when alongside Sammut who is a bit more 'off the cuff', but we lose something at 9 as a result. I'm not a huge fan of Api tbh, too often takes the wrong option and spends a large part of every season injured. I thought Pellisier was poor. First pass from the ruck was laborious and often misplaced, and he likes to take a couple of steps before making that pass which just kills the space in front of the defenders - either run or pass, don't hang around. We've looked better with young Davies playing there, he at least keeps it simple and gives good, early ball. Broncos dominated the first half but made hard work of it later on. Too many silly mistakes that released the pressure on Halifax and allowed them back into the game. The back five were excellent, as were Battye, Pitts and Cunningham. Delighted with the win but it should have been much more comfortable.
  4. Firstly, no need for the condescension. Even more so when you've so comprehensively misunderstood what's being discussed. Secondly, the discussion was surrounding future TV deals. So, Toulouse and Toronto in SL means that when the next negotiation begins, SL can say to potential broadcasters "instead of showing 2 1/2 games per week, as at present, we can offer you 3 1/2 games". That's an increase that, depending on how the negotiations proceed, could be used to 1) increase the revenue, or 2) off-set the rumoured drop in value.
  5. nadera78

    Toronto

    If the biggest reason anyone can find to prevent Toronto playing in SL is that they can't host games in February then they're doing amazingly well. SL shouldn't even be playing in February anyway, the season's a month too long.
  6. Doing that gives everything away in one go, you've got nothing left to sell in the future. Having Toronto and Toulouse in SL offers another TV game each week, at little cost to the UK's broadcaster. That's the card you play at the next negotiations.
  7. I think it was the RFL imposing a time limit, not Sky. Wood, etc basically told the clubs how much money they'd receive each year, plus the 'signing bonus' if agreed within the time limit, and left all the other information out. The clubs saw the up front £300,000 and went for it, as Wood knew they would. That's why they ended up with a deal where the SL clubs got an increase in central funding, but a big piece of the revenue they generate is now being given to C/L1 clubs. I think the SL clubs get less than 60% of the TV revenue. It took another year for the RFL to finally reveal the financial details in full. That manoeuvring by Wood, orchestrated so that he could get funding to his power base in the Championship and fund his favoured 8s system, is essentially the reason the SL clubs moved against Wood last year and the RFL last month.
  8. nadera78

    NRL Proposes International Shake Up

    I'd rather the Aussies come here to play England in 2019 than see GB travel over there and play half-arsed fixtures in half-empty stadiums. I'm not interested in GB at all. But I really don't see, as others have said, why there can't be a very exciting 6 team Pacific Championship held every four years. Australia v Tonga at Parramatta's new stadium? Hell yeah! If the organisers can't make money on games like that they ought to find another job.
  9. Nothing to do with franchising, Salford sold The Willows because they didn't have any money.
  10. nadera78

    How do we build support?

    Not in my version of Top Trumps, but then mine does date from 1995. Maybe later versions have upgraded that phrase?
  11. nadera78

    How do we build support?

    No, no, no. Don't ask questions. He used the magic phrase 'Super Greed'. He wins.
  12. nadera78

    NRL Proposes International Shake Up

    On the one hand I'm not bothered by this in the slightest - we get a new 4-year cycle every 12-18 months and none of them ever comes to fruition. On the other hand, this is such a blatant attempt by the NRL to take charge of international RL and shape it to suit their needs not those of the game. Their selfish behaviour is, once again, utterly pathetic tbh. Glad we've got strong people at both the RFL and RLIF who will stand up to this nonsense from the NRL.
  13. nadera78

    Our new position in the EU

    Not so fast. That would really depend on the type of agreement made, and how it fits into the rest of the process. Tearing it up - if that's even possible - could lead to all sorts of other complications and repercussions. Leaving the EU, leaving international agreements....none of it is simple. You don't seem to have grasped that yet.
  14. nadera78

    Our new position in the EU

    I'm stretching back into the memory banks here.... ...but it depends if the backstop agreement has been passed into law by Parliament. We operate a dualist system, so international law and treaties doesn't automatically become British law, Parliament actually has to pass an Act in order for them to take effect (i.e. European Communities Act 1972 being the important document not the piece of paper signed by the government and EC officials). Other countries operate a different system. Assuming May's agreement with the EU regarding the backstop has been passed by Parliament (you'd have to remind me if it has) then it is now UK law. However...if this new Trade Bill were to be passed with that amendment intact then, as a newer Act, it would impliedly repeal the relevant legislation regarding the backstop. However...however...it might be argued that the backstop plan forms what is known as a constitutional statute in which case it cannot be impliedly repealed, only expressly repealed. A constitutional statute is a relatively new concept in the UK, going back to a case surrounding the metric martyrs 15 or so years ago. I'm guessing the only way we'd know if it was a constitutional statute or not is via a full hearing of the Supreme Court (a bit like the Miller case 2 years ago). If the backstop plan hasn't been passed into UK law then none of the above matters, and this amendment would make it impossible for May to follow through on it. That's completely off the top of my head. And it's a long time since I last had to consider any of this.