Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

DeadShotKeen

The Challenge Cup Final vs NRL

72 posts in this topic

DSK should your beef not be with the clubs and not the RFL?

 

I may misunderstand where the power sits within the game, but every article I read about restructures seems to involve some sort of discussion and vote by club chairman.  So why not take up issue with your club chairman/chief exec. 

 

Take issues like franchising, we've done it to death on here, if there is overwhelming support at a fan level for it and fans take it up with there own club to influence voting is that not the way to go rather than making the RFL the scapegoat for all that is wrong with the game? 

 

Strikes me if the RFL tried to impose things against clubs will they'd breakway and take the Sky money with them, but I think we've been there before! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go so far as to say that Locke is twice the player that Tomkins is and I mean that in no derogatory way to Tomkins. Locke is IMHO amongst the top 4 or 5 FBs in a league awash with fabulous ones. Much better positionally (and generally) in defence, better kick returner (Tomkins usually chucks the ball so he can take it at 1st receiver anyway) and more likely to get on the shoulder of his half backs at pace. Tomkins has never played at an NRL pace, for one thing. It will be an eye-opener for him and any British outside back entering NRL, let me tell you.

 

In Tomkins favour is his undoubted "X factor" trickery and I genuinely would love to see how this goes in NRL, with a degree of confidence that it will win him respect and plaudits. Personally I'm not convinced he's a FB anyway (for the reasons noted) and see him more as a half back. But the idea that he'll go over there and wipe the floor with the NRL is nothing more than jingoistic chest-beating. Anyway, we shall see indeed.

You think Kevin Locke is "twice the player" of Sam Tomkins? I don't even think you'll find many NZ Warriors fans who agree with you on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I'll go so far as to say that Locke is twice the player that Tomkins is and I mean that in no derogatory way to Tomkins.

 

2. Locke is IMHO amongst the top 4 or 5 FBs in a league awash with fabulous ones.

 

3. Much better positionally (and generally) in defence,

 

4. better kick returner (Tomkins usually chucks the ball so he can take it at 1st receiver anyway)

 

5. and more likely to get on the shoulder of his half backs at pace.

 

6.. Tomkins has never played at an NRL pace, for one thing. It will be an eye-opener for him and any British outside back entering NRL, let me tell you.

 

In Tomkins favour is his undoubted "X factor" trickery and I genuinely would love to see how this goes in NRL, with a degree of confidence that it will win him respect and plaudits. Personally I'm not convinced he's a FB anyway (for the reasons noted) and see him more as a half back. But the idea that he'll go over there and wipe the floor with the NRL is nothing more than jingoistic chest-beating. Anyway, we shall see indeed.

 

1. Borderline trolling. There isn't any point in debating that comment. Notice how the speculation regarding Tomkins generally asks where Locke is going to play rather than Tomkins. Most people assume Tomkins is first choice.

 

2. Right that's fine. Doesn't mean he's better than Tomkins.

 

3. You've plucked those statements out of you're imagination. Tomkins positionally is very good. Whenever teams put in an attacking kick he tends to be there or there abouts. You also don't see Tomkins miss a tackle very often. He has one of the best tackle success rates of a full back in SL, not that matters as he isn't playing against supermen week in week out like other,.

 

4. The giving the ball to a winger is a Shaun Wane thing. Both Hampshire and Tierney have done it this season. I haven't seen Locke make 50 and 60m kick returns against the best two international sides he can play against. Then again you'd probably think Aus and NZ don't play up to the week in week out intensity of the NRL

 

5. Disagree. There's no stats to back it up with for either so no point in debating

 

6. Carney did it and got into the NRL team of the season did he not? I don't think anyone will state Carney is any where near the player Tomkins is.

 

There isn't much point in debating in a comparison between the NRL and SL with yourself and petero. No stat or positive piece will change your mind, I think it's best for the people who actually enjoy the English game to let you get on with gladly moaning about the negatives in our game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam not being safe under the high ball is slowly becoming a myth. He did have his problems a couple of seasons ago but they are have nearly been rid of completely from his game, along with the little niggles and bad attitude. If you can find 3 instances of Sam dropping a high ball in the last year I'll be very surprised. I can't recall more than one if I'm honest, although I am restricted to only watching Wigan on SL full time and when they are on SKY/BBC so someone who watches them week in week out can probably how much he has dropped it.

The standard of full backs is high in the NRL, but if you think Sam will struggle you are being blinded by sheer bias towards the NRL. Obviously the comparison between players is hard to make as they rarely face eachother but when Sam faced Aus and NZ in the 4N in 2011 he excelled. If you watch the first game against Aus he was involved heavily in all the tries. Making 60m breaks against NZ between 6 players it was all there to see.

His stats in the SL are incomparable to any other player. You mention the only thing Sam is good at his being evasive, you obviously havent watched SL in the last couple of years as his overall game has developed immensely. He offers so much more to Wigan than his attacking threat, the same with Sean O Loughlin in the Wigan side they offer so much to the organisation to the side and helping their side when it comes to reading the game. I'm sure most Wigan fans will confirm how important to the Wigan side both these players are.

You'll think that Tomkins will struggle in the NRL which is up to you. Any stat from SL won't change your mind. Any video clip from SL or against international opposition won't change your mind. We'll just have to wait to see if he goes to the NRL to make a judgement.

But back on thread, can you answer CKN's question of what else can the RFL do?

 

You progress to accuse me of not watching S/L........WRONG! I do but I wonder if in turn you watch the NRL? If not I will inform you of why I believe the Sam will struggle there under high balls, at least initially.

He will be shell shocked at the accuracy of so many of the recognised tactical kickers in the NRL teams, Cronk, Maloney, C/Evans and agood few more are accurate at an alarming rate with kicks placed to put a F/Back or any other defender under the greatest pressure when waiting for such balls.

The players that follow up such kicks are numerous so often and the F/B can expet to be hit and hit hard upon a great many occasions.

Sam will rarely, very rarely, if at all, at this stage of his career been under pressure and on his past record I do not believe that he will find it easy to cope with that, that over time he could improve, I hope he will as I, believe it or not, sincerely do want him to succeed in the NRL, as I do all of the English lads now playing down there, but I do feel that the F/B position being as specialised as it is there will not suit Sam so much.  

 

Sorry for the missing out of O'Loughlin as I thought the emphasis was on Tomkins. However that both are so good for Wigan goes without question, in fact in my own opinion I tend to recognise that O'Loughlin is a far more important cog in the machine than is Tomkins and would be missed more in the long run within that present set up.

 

As you say stats from the S/L are not something that I give much thought about and those concerning the scoring of walkover tries against the likes of Salford, Cas London etc really when compared with the standards of the NRL have little or any relevence towards how someone will perform in that Comp. Look B, the Burgess twins on that reckoning ought to be nowhere close to being good enough for the NRL, their STATs here being practically non-existent, both are more than good enough especially George who has quickly established himself among the best forwards in the NRL, Tom seems to be looking to doe the same, Sam is possibly the best and Luke can at least when fully fit again hold his own, so stats, you are correct, I pay them little if any consideration. 

 

And finally, CKNs question. I already have if will take care to read the reply I gave to him, I will repeat here " I am unconcerned with what the R/L can do for whatever that is, or amounts to, will certainly occur without any input from me anyway. I hope that is suffiecient enough an answer for you. :drag:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because it is also lopsided and unsustainable.

 

If you knew anything about my "schtick" you would know better than to think that I want rugby league to emulate soccer. I want it to emulate the NRL, NFL and NBA, all of whose games ARE shown live.

Don't forget the NHL!  :nhl:

 

Sorry... just wanted an excuse to use the emoticon. It's one of the best ones that I've ever seen :ph34r: (it does belong with those you list though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget the NHL!  :nhl:

 

Sorry... just wanted an excuse to use the emoticon. It's one of the best ones that I've ever seen :ph34r: (it does belong with those you list though).

Maybe we need to put an 'N' at the beginning of SL then, seems to work for everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we need to put an 'N' at the beginning of SL then, seems to work for everything else.

:D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Positivity for positivity's sake is no use to anyone. I simply call it as I see it. I spend much of my working day evangelising about NRL (as in my initial piece) to soccer-mad colleagues - before the abandonment of licensing I did the same about Super League.

 

I drew up my proposal for SL on here a while ago. A reduced 12 team competition involving mergers in Hull, Calder, Cumbria and Cheshire. Naturally it wasn't universally popular, in the same way that NRL's mergers and exclusions were doubtless not universally popular in the late 1990s. I also earmarked 4 expansion sides (Bristol, Edinburgh, Toulouse and London Mk II) for entry at a later stage. This would take much hard work to achieve but crucially - IMHO - it would attract significantly more commercial revenues than at present and could be sold to a high TV bidder.

 

As you want to engage in a positive, constructive debate, what do you think about this proposal?

 

I think your proposals would destroy the game. They are simplistic, uncosted and take no account of past failures, particularly with regard to the suggestion of wholesale mergers of clubs.

 

For example, if you seriously believe merging Hull FC and Hull KR into a single Hull club would have any chance of success whatsoever, then you've clearly never been to Hull!

 

If you trample all over what a club means to the people who support it in order to shoehorn what currently exists into some 'perfect model' league structure, you do not enhance the sport, you completely undermine it at its roots.

 

Before you trot out Australia as the perfect example of such madness bearing fruit, consider the case of South Sydney Rabbitohs: initially ejected from the league because they wouldn't merge, eventually reinstated as a stand alone club after lengthy legal battles, yet currently doing very nicely thank you at the top of the NRL ladder. The merger between North Sydney Bears and Manly Sea Eagles was also a complete and utter disaster from which only Manly escaped relatively unscathed, and they've since gone on to win the Premiership again as a stand alone club. In contrast, the two remaining merged clubs, St George-Illawarra and Wests Tigers can currently be found propping up the NRL table.

 

It just isn't as easy or simple or assured of success as you want to pretend.

 

Then there's the matter of starting up clubs in new areas. How exactly do you propose to finance them? Because without finance, like any club, anywhere, they will fail. If we haven't learned that lesson yet as a sport, then we never will. I've always been a supporter of expanding the game and will remain so, but you can't just stick pins in a map and wish clubs into existence.

 

Australia has its own share of failed expansion experiments: Adelaide Rams, Perth Western Reds and South Queensland Crushers. Remember them? Auckland/New Zealand Warriors has had a traumatic and not exactly success laden history to date, and without having been bankrolled so extensively by News Ltd up until this year, how likely is it that Melbourne Storm would still be around?

 

If we are going to have a serious debate, then it has to be based in reality, not the fantasy you are currently indulging in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously though the NHL season consists of an 82 game regular season for each of the 30 teams plus the playoffs. It's therefore normal for each team to play 2-3 games a week and the league is covered by a few different television networks across America and Canada, so it stands to reason that a huge number of games will be broadcast. As such it isn't really fair to compare SL to it. I only watch the NBA and NFL occasionally so I can't really comment on them, but I believe that the NBA schedule has a fair bit in common with the NHL's. 

 

I think that comparing SL to the NRL is fair, due both to the similar number of teams and the fact that most of the games take place on the weekend. I don't like the comparison to American sports, their nature is just too different and I don't think that's even giving SL a chance to look good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your proposals would destroy the game. They are simplistic, uncosted and take no account of past failures, particularly with regard to the suggestion of wholesale mergers of clubs.

 

For example, if you seriously believe merging Hull FC and Hull KR into a single Hull club would have any chance of success whatsoever, then you've clearly never been to Hull!

 

If you trample all over what a club means to the people who support it in order to shoehorn what currently exists into some 'perfect model' league structure, you do not enhance the sport, you completely undermine it at its roots.

 

Before you trot out Australia as the perfect example of such madness bearing fruit, consider the case of South Sydney Rabbitohs: initially ejected from the league because they wouldn't merge, eventually reinstated as a stand alone club after lengthy legal battles, yet currently doing very nicely thank you at the top of the NRL ladder. The merger between North Sydney Bears and Manly Sea Eagles was also a complete and utter disaster from which only Manly escaped relatively unscathed, and they've since gone on to win the Premiership again as a stand alone club. In contrast, the two remaining merged clubs, St George-Illawarra and Wests Tigers can currently be found propping up the NRL table.

 

It just isn't as easy or simple or assured of success as you want to pretend.

 

Then there's the matter of starting up clubs in new areas. How exactly do you propose to finance them? Because without finance, like any club, anywhere, they will fail. If we haven't learned that lesson yet as a sport, then we never will. I've always been a supporter of expanding the game and will remain so, but you can't just stick pins in a map and wish clubs into existence.

 

Australia has its own share of failed expansion experiments: Adelaide Rams, Perth Western Reds and South Queensland Crushers. Remember them? Auckland/New Zealand Warriors has had a traumatic and not exactly success laden history to date, and without having been bankrolled so extensively by News Ltd up until this year, how likely is it that Melbourne Storm would still be around?

 

If we are going to have a serious debate, then it has to be based in reality, not the fantasy you are currently indulging in.

I think that's a great post John, What you say about St George-Illawarra and the Wests Tigers is a little deceptive though. It's true that neither are having great seasons but they've both been successful since their respective mergers took place, with the Tigers winning the title in 2005 and the Dragons taking it in 2010. I put their lack of success this season down to what I said in the other thread about the balance of power shifting quickly in the NRL. I suspect that both of these teams will bounce back soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually found all this out in a programme Clare Balding hosted on sport generally but one episode focused on rugby league.  I didn't realise how close rugby came to becoming the national sport; but for the split and ongoing feuding it could have been as it was more popular at the time than soccer.

Also there was nearly the merger of Rugby League and Aussie Rule's back in 1919 and 1933 and with that you might of ended up with a proper all Australian grand final alongside SOO between NSW v Victoria and all the British Lions playing test in Melbourne etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your proposals would destroy the game. They are simplistic, uncosted and take no account of past failures, particularly with regard to the suggestion of wholesale mergers of clubs.

 

For example, if you seriously believe merging Hull FC and Hull KR into a single Hull club would have any chance of success whatsoever, then you've clearly never been to Hull!

 

If you trample all over what a club means to the people who support it in order to shoehorn what currently exists into some 'perfect model' league structure, you do not enhance the sport, you completely undermine it at its roots.

 

Before you trot out Australia as the perfect example of such madness bearing fruit, consider the case of South Sydney Rabbitohs: initially ejected from the league because they wouldn't merge, eventually reinstated as a stand alone club after lengthy legal battles, yet currently doing very nicely thank you at the top of the NRL ladder. The merger between North Sydney Bears and Manly Sea Eagles was also a complete and utter disaster from which only Manly escaped relatively unscathed, and they've since gone on to win the Premiership again as a stand alone club. In contrast, the two remaining merged clubs, St George-Illawarra and Wests Tigers can currently be found propping up the NRL table.

 

It just isn't as easy or simple or assured of success as you want to pretend.

 

Then there's the matter of starting up clubs in new areas. How exactly do you propose to finance them? Because without finance, like any club, anywhere, they will fail. If we haven't learned that lesson yet as a sport, then we never will. I've always been a supporter of expanding the game and will remain so, but you can't just stick pins in a map and wish clubs into existence.

 

Australia has its own share of failed expansion experiments: Adelaide Rams, Perth Western Reds and South Queensland Crushers. Remember them? Auckland/New Zealand Warriors has had a traumatic and not exactly success laden history to date, and without having been bankrolled so extensively by News Ltd up until this year, how likely is it that Melbourne Storm would still be around?

 

If we are going to have a serious debate, then it has to be based in reality, not the fantasy you are currently indulging in.

 

I'm from Hull John, currently live in Manchester but visit friends in Hull occasionally and am seasoned in the age old merger debate with cab drivers etc. I think your suggestion that no-one would take to a Hull or other merged side is just traditionalist scaremongering. These things have to be judged on their individual merits. Some areas would benefit from them, some would not. Whilst it's very easy to support the status quo position (as most do, in Hull and elsewhere), my Hull merger wish does find support (some wholesale, some a more grudging "Well it does make a lot of sense") when I'm back there. The city of Hull IMHO just does not have the fan and commercial resources to support 2 genuinely successful sides. Keeping 2 rather than pooling and having a genuine go at it confines both sets of fans to perpetual mediocrity. When was the last Hull derby that genuinely meant anything? It was nearly 30 years ago, in a different era. Be careful of what you wish for.

 

How would I finance new start-up sides? Well you would likely need Koukash style benefactors. They wouldn't come easy but at the very least the willing and invitation should be there. My initial contraction to 12 frees up more TV cash for those 12, many of whom would be bolstered by amalgamated investment. Then you look to drive up the TV and other commercial revenues from your new, high quality, genuinely intense competition. Bringing Featherstone and Leigh back into the fold is not getting this done, rather it is likely to send our sport yet further into poverty and national mindset indifference. But you will have placated some grumpy, ageing fans. Again, be careful of what you wish for.

 

My intention, anyway, would be that the sport would have more central money before expansion, at that point also you hope to woo the likes of Koukash and then you genuinely take it to soccer and rugby union in their own back yards. The league should centrally fund such sides to the hilt and make no apologies for doing so. If you fail, you fail and you had a go. 

 

You've mentioned some NRL failures that to me are nothing more than growing pains. Some sides lost out, some mooted mergers never happened, some of those sides then did OK on their own, some had already gone. Ultimately, so what? Are all of the Aussie RL heartlands served by an NRL side within spitting distance? Yes, and this really is all that matters. No-one guaranteed any Aussie or Brit RL fan more than that and Super League and the NRL owes them nothing more. The health of the sport and its elite league comes before the self-serving interests of any set of fans, myself as a Hull KR fan included.

 

You say that my proposal would ruin the sport (presumably through being too radical), I say the one we're running with will do the same through inertia. Sometimes to fail you just have to do nothing or rest on your laurels. Ultimately we'll see but it's not just traditionalists that bail on sports when the tide turns against them - often modernists will bail too and for me British rugby league will soon count the unseen cost of future generations lost to the game because they were left uncompetitive, financial basket case clubs within a lopsided structure. We will see indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm from Hull John, currently live in Manchester but visit friends in Hull occasionally and am seasoned in the age old merger debate with cab drivers etc. I think your suggestion that no-one would take to a Hull or other merged side is just traditionalist scaremongering. These things have to be judged on their individual merits. Some areas would benefit from them, some would not. Whilst it's very easy to support the status quo position (as most do, in Hull and elsewhere), my Hull merger wish does find support (some wholesale, some a more grudging "Well it does make a lot of sense") when I'm back there. The city of Hull IMHO just does not have the fan and commercial resources to support 2 genuinely successful sides. Keeping 2 rather than pooling and having a genuine go at it confines both sets of fans to perpetual mediocrity. When was the last Hull derby that genuinely meant anything? It was nearly 30 years ago, in a different era. Be careful of what you wish for.

 

How would I finance new start-up sides? Well you would likely need Koukash style benefactors. They wouldn't come easy but at the very least the willing and invitation should be there. My initial contraction to 12 frees up more TV cash for those 12, many of whom would be bolstered by amalgamated investment. Then you look to drive up the TV and other commercial revenues from your new, high quality, genuinely intense competition. Bringing Featherstone and Leigh back into the fold is not getting this done, rather it is likely to send our sport yet further into poverty and national mindset indifference. But you will have placated some grumpy, ageing fans. Again, be careful of what you wish for.

 

My intention, anyway, would be that the sport would have more central money before expansion, at that point also you hope to woo the likes of Koukash and then you genuinely take it to soccer and rugby union in their own back yards. The league should centrally fund such sides to the hilt and make no apologies for doing so. If you fail, you fail and you had a go. 

 

You've mentioned some NRL failures that to me are nothing more than growing pains. Some sides lost out, some mooted mergers never happened, some of those sides then did OK on their own, some had already gone. Ultimately, so what? Are all of the Aussie RL heartlands served by an NRL side within spitting distance? Yes, and this really is all that matters. No-one guaranteed any Aussie or Brit RL fan more than that and Super League and the NRL owes them nothing more. The health of the sport and its elite league comes before the self-serving interests of any set of fans, myself as a Hull KR fan included.

 

You say that my proposal would ruin the sport (presumably through being too radical), I say the one we're running with will do the same through inertia. Sometimes to fail you just have to do nothing or rest on your laurels. Ultimately we'll see but it's not just traditionalists that bail on sports when the tide turns against them - often modernists will bail too and for me British rugby league will soon count the unseen cost of future generations lost to the game because they were left uncompetitive, financial basket case clubs within a lopsided structure. We will see indeed.

 

You are assuming by opposing your proposals that I must therefore support the existing restructure proposals.

 

I don't.

 

But I think yours are even worse because they take no account of financial reality and assume mergers of clubs will work, when the evidence for that is almost non-existent.

 

Gateshead & Hull FC? Huddersfield & Sheffield? It's not as if it hasn't been tried before in this country. The results were disastrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your proposals would destroy the game. They are simplistic, uncosted and take no account of past failures, particularly with regard to the suggestion of wholesale mergers of clubs.

 

For example, if you seriously believe merging Hull FC and Hull KR into a single Hull club would have any chance of success whatsoever, then you've clearly never been to Hull!

 

If you trample all over what a club means to the people who support it in order to shoehorn what currently exists into some 'perfect model' league structure, you do not enhance the sport, you completely undermine it at its roots.

 

Before you trot out Australia as the perfect example of such madness bearing fruit, consider the case of South Sydney Rabbitohs: initially ejected from the league because they wouldn't merge, eventually reinstated as a stand alone club after lengthy legal battles, yet currently doing very nicely thank you at the top of the NRL ladder. The merger between North Sydney Bears and Manly Sea Eagles was also a complete and utter disaster from which only Manly escaped relatively unscathed, and they've since gone on to win the Premiership again as a stand alone club. In contrast, the two remaining merged clubs, St George-Illawarra and Wests Tigers can currently be found propping up the NRL table.

 

It just isn't as easy or simple or assured of success as you want to pretend.

 

Then there's the matter of starting up clubs in new areas. How exactly do you propose to finance them? Because without finance, like any club, anywhere, they will fail. If we haven't learned that lesson yet as a sport, then we never will. I've always been a supporter of expanding the game and will remain so, but you can't just stick pins in a map and wish clubs into existence.

 

Australia has its own share of failed expansion experiments: Adelaide Rams, Perth Western Reds and South Queensland Crushers. Remember them? Auckland/New Zealand Warriors has had a traumatic and not exactly success laden history to date, and without having been bankrolled so extensively by News Ltd up until this year, how likely is it that Melbourne Storm would still be around?

 

If we are going to have a serious debate, then it has to be based in reality, not the fantasy you are currently indulging in.

 

 

Some of the things you have quoted John have more to them than what is on the surface.

 

Just as the ARL expanded and brought new Clubs into the game the Super League War broke out backed by the media moguls trying to sell pay TV.

Norths were in big financial trouble, Manly were never going to be an equal partner their Ego is too big so it was inevitable who would win out, no different than St George, Illawarra, The Dragons have the money, Illawarra has the Juniors and the nursery, its just these two partners accept their roles and get on with it.

 

Most of those teams you mentioned jumped ship to the new "Vision" (dollars) others were manufactured by either side to counter the others local based club like the Crushers and the Hunter Mariners or a Super League stuff up like the Adelaide Rams.

The fact that most of the Clubs that the ARL gave franchises to jumped ship for the money to Murdochs vision was the way it was.

When it all came to a stale mate some of the Clubs had to have their throats cut in the peace process.

Most would have withered on the Vine anyway without massive financial losses from a media backer.

 

It was not just ARL expansion, it was the hijacking of the game at that time. In some ways the game in England, has been and still is a victim of this event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the things you have quoted John have more to them than what is on the surface.

 

Just as the ARL expanded and brought new Clubs into the game the Super League War broke out backed by the media moguls trying to sell pay TV.

Norths were in big financial trouble, Manly were never going to be an equal partner their Ego is too big so it was inevitable who would win out, no different than St George, Illawarra, The Dragons have the money, Illawarra has the Juniors and the nursery, its just these two partners accept their roles and get on with it.

 

Most of those teams you mentioned jumped ship to the new "Vision" (dollars) others were manufactured by either side to counter the others local based club like the Crushers and the Hunter Mariners or a Super League stuff up like the Adelaide Rams.

The fact that most of the Clubs that the ARL gave franchises to jumped ship for the money to Murdochs vision was the way it was.

When it all came to a stale mate some of the Clubs had to have their throats cut in the peace process.

Most would have withered on the Vine anyway without massive financial losses from a media backer.

 

It was not just ARL expansion, it was the hijacking of the game at that time. In some ways the game in England, has been and still is a victim of this event.

 

I understand that.

 

But the examples I gave illustrated a point: club mergers are not guaranteed to succeed and expansion will struggle unless it is well planned and properly financed, even in Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DSK also assumes that his new franchises will be ultra competitive fom day one and this will drive up TV revenues. Please explain how ths will happen overnight DSk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are assuming by opposing your proposals that I must therefore support the existing restructure proposals.

 

I don't.

 

But I think yours are even worse because they take no account of financial reality and assume mergers of clubs will work, when the evidence for that is almost non-existent.

 

Gateshead & Hull FC? Huddersfield & Sheffield? It's not as if it hasn't been tried before in this country. The results were disastrous.

 

But you know as well as me John that those were not mergers in any real sense but just the swallowing up of a smaller side by a bigger or more cash-rich side. In both cases the geography makes precisely no sense for them to even be called mergers.

 

I don't decree that mergers are perfect or unproblematic, however the whole "We've tried them before and proved that they don't work" argument frequently trotted out against them is flimsy at the very best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DSK also assumes that his new franchises will be ultra competitive fom day one and this will drive up TV revenues. Please explain how ths will happen overnight DSk?

 

Well they would be competitive in the sense that they would have the financial clout to pay full cap (unlike several current SL sides). So at the very least they would have a number of franchise players that would in theory mean they should be the match of everyone (as should everyone else).

 

Whether they garner results on the pitch is of course the 60 million dollar question and the reason we all watch pro sport. But they wouldn't sit at the bottom of a hierarchical structure (the biggest obstacle to bringing in new fans at places like London, Crusaders etc.) - this is the pertinent point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they would be competitive in the sense that they would have the financial clout to pay full cap (unlike several current SL sides). So at the very least they would have a number of franchise players that would in theory mean they should be the match of everyone (as should everyone else).

 

Whether they garner results on the pitch is of course the 60 million dollar question and the reason we all watch pro sport. But they wouldn't sit at the bottom of a hierarchical structure (the biggest obstacle to bringing in new fans at places like London, Crusaders etc.) - this is the pertinent point.

So you can guarantee the expansion franchises wouldn't be at the bottom of the league table!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly cringe when I read your posts.

 

Your worship of the NRL is enough to make me feel sick.

 

Open both eyes.

 

They certainly are Frankly.

 

All I can deduce from that retort is that you are possibly one of those unfortunate souls that cringe easily and possess a weak stomach also. :girlwerewolf:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My stomach is hardly weak, so that really shows the strength of my feelings towards your Aussie adoration.

 

The NRL is good, but nothing is as good as you would have us believe it is.

 

How about we agree to differ, peace man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017