Jump to content

The Great Dane

Coach
  • Posts

    1,170
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Great Dane

  1. My talk is fine, you are just incapable of engaging it honestly! For example I never said there should be a ban on foreign players, you've just built that straw man because it's easier to argue against that point then the one I was making. BTW, we know exactly why kids are being pushed towards AFL, soccer, and basketball over RL, RU, boxing, etc, at an ever increasing rate. The parents that are doing the pushing aren't the least bit shy about their reasoning, especially after CTE became a well known issue. Without going into too much detail, people have the perception that RL, RU, etc are much more dangerous sports than AFL, soccer, etc, and particularly don't like it when a significantly larger kid plays and dominants (those significantly larger kids being disproportionately represented by Polynesians). This leads them to demand changes that have their own negative effects, such as banning tackling till an older age (which actually leads to more injuries), or divisions based on weight instead of age (which leads to the larger kids and their families becoming disenfranchised). It's a complex situation, and I don't claim to have any solutions to the problem, but ignoring it because it's inconvenient isn't going to make it go away.
  2. Pfft, the Hunters probably wouldn't be around today if the NRL hadn't agreed to providing "necessary funding"... Every Islander in the NRL is taking a spot that could have been taken by an Australian, and if we are being honest with ourselves it'd be better for the sport in this country if they were taken by Australians. The influx in Islanders has also correlated in a growing trend in Australia of young kids being pushed towards Aussie Rules over RL by their parents (primarily by their mothers if we are being honest), which among other problems is going to bite us in the ###### in a generation or two unless we find workable ways to deal with it. Surely you are joking about the Pacific tests. They're a charity case that wouldn't happen at all if the NRL didn't prop them up, which is the theme isn't it, the NRL propping things up that are neither sustainable nor any of their business at the expense of the game locally with little expectation of a significant return on the investment. The NRL is very quickly becoming the firefighter whose house burns down during the bushfire while he's off saving other peoples, and it won't be good for anyone if/when that happens.
  3. Did you even read what I said? I mean I literally said that the grants themselves aren’t a problem, but that creating a direct competitor for a business that is struggling a bit and needs financial aid isn’t a very good idea. But if we are being honest with ourselves is it really the NRL’s place to be propping up teams from PNG anyway. Especially when A. it comes at the expense of growth in Australia, and B. they wouldn’t do it for any of the second tier teams in Australia.
  4. Despite assuring everyone that they wouldn't need any financial assistance the Hunters have had some financial struggles, and have received at least one grant from the NRL. Now I don't really have a problem with that, every start up business underestimates how much they'll need in start up funds and a bit of assistance isn't a big deal, but it doesn't make much sense to add a competitor to the market while the first club is still struggling for financial stability, especially when you'll just end up underwriting that competitor as well. Adding more clubs from overseas also creates a greater barrier to entry for new local clubs from smaller country town, when one of the greatest things that could ever happen for RL would be if the NRL could stop the slow death of the sport in the Bush and get as many fans in the bush as possible actively engaging with the sport on a regular basis. Honestly well supported clubs in all the major country towns in NSW and Qld would be enormous for the sport, and maintaining and growing the sport in Australia is why the QRL, NSWRL, and NRL exist...
  5. Not necessarily, especially if they haven't had the opportunity for much game time in the NRL, which has been the case for Flanagan because until this year he was stuck behind well established halves at Cronulla. As far as we know nobody has decided he doesn't have the potential except you, and again there's a massive difference between not thinking he's ready to steer a side to a premiership next season and not thinking he's got the potential to become a premiership winning halfback at all. Mate, you've gone from saying the Roosters don't think he'll ever be a top NRL half, to saying he does have the potential it just isn't going to happen overnight and the Roosters aren't willing to wait, to now saying he doesn't have the potential to be an NRL half. You can't have it both ways.
  6. I was around back then as well. Everybody hated the bye except the players, and people still hate the uneven draw to this day. The fans whom get a 'bad draw' complain about it each year, and the clubs that get dudded for free to air games regularly will tell you themselves that it costs them invaluable exposure and sponsorship dollars. Adding an uneven amount of teams and a weekly bye will just exacerbate those problems and should be avoided if at all possible. It also wasn't so bad back then because everybody knew that it wouldn't be a long term thing. As soon as the NRL's appeal was over either the Rabbitohs were going to be punted again or the NRL would be forced to expand, either way it'd be over after a few years. But if you expand by one club then who knows how long it'll be before another one comes in to make up the numbers. As soon as the Broncos first bye came around the broadcasters started bitching and moaning about how it was a "free kick" to other sports to have such valuable assets sitting on the sideline. In other words, they are happy to have a weekly bye so long as they don't think it's effecting their ratings, and they pretty quickly come around to the idea of paying for more content when they realise that a weekly bye means that the "big clubs" have to take them as well.
  7. Well that's the complete opposite of what you were saying before... Good job basically repeating my opinion back to me though lol. The thing is though that you say 'this is professional sport at work', but lets be real, aside from a handful of clubs (Rooster, arguably Melbourne, and the Broncos when they aren't being run incompetently), most clubs don't have the luxury to just throw away such a good prospect because they don't think that he'll be able to win them a premiership in the next season. In fact many clubs would be forced to totally compromise there salary cap just to keep a couple of prospects of Flanagan's ability on the roster. Which raises questions about the Roosters and/or the NRL's supposedly fair salary cap system that people don't want to talk about honestly. Also it's pretty unfair to compare Flanagan to Cleary. Sure Cleary's only a year older, but Cleary's got about 60ish first grade games on Flanagan. If you compare the Cleary of a few years ago (i.e. the same point in their development as a player) to the Flanagan of today then they're at a pretty similar level, and with some experience, the right commitment and coaching, and a good dose of luck, there's no reason why Flanagan couldn't develop into a player every bit as good as Cleary is now.
  8. Interest isn't the problem. There are tons of loaded people/groups interested in owning/backing an NRL club in Brisbane. The problem so far has been that all their ideas for the new club haven't really fit what the NRL needs in a second Brisbane club.
  9. Unless the new club sucks as well, in which case the people in Brisbane will refuse to watch them as well.
  10. LOL. They aren't getting rid of him because they don't think he will improve; they are getting rid of him because they are the Roosters, and they're not prepared to wait for him to improve! Anyone with a brain and a pair of eyeballs can see the kid has plenty of potential, but it's going to take experience and good coaching for that to happen, which takes time, and the Roosters aren't the sort of club that is willing to risk a season or two waiting for a young half to come into his own.
  11. There's little value to the NRL it's self in adding one more team, and the only reason we seem to be talking about one team instead of two is because V'Landys has this weird hate boner for anywhere outside of NSW and QLD. If for whatever crazy reason the NRL does expand by one team it'll only be a matter of time before problems with an uneven draw, frustration with constant byes, and pressure from broadcasters for more content, will force them to even out the competition again. So yeah, I don't know why we are screwing around with the idea of adding one more team when we know from experience that it doesn't really work.
  12. A second Brisbane club is inevitable, but none of the bids are quite there if you know what I mean. The Firehawks are the closest by far, but even they have their flaws. Hopefully the NRL announces a bidding process and some better options come out of the woodwork.
  13. If it was the AFL that had pulled it off then this article would have described their success with words like tactical and genius, but it was the NRL so it was 'arrogant' and 'foolhardy'. . . That's just the way the Australian media is I guess.
  14. Yeah, Adelaide had been scheduled to host a one of this years SOO games for a couple years now. The NRL will probably give them another one for cheap to make up for this one being ruined by Covid as well.
  15. If participation rates are directly linked to support of the professional game, then using your logic you'd expect soccer's participation numbers in Australia to result in absolutely huge ratings and support for the top soccer leagues in the world. For example, since their participation rates are so much higher you'd expect that the EPL would out rate the NRL and AFL in Australia, but that simply isn't the case at all. In fact if people disproportionately value a competition based of it's perceived quality, i.e. they're much more likely to support a competition if it's the "best" in it's sport, then surely you'd expect that to be repeated across the world. In other words wouldn't you expect there to be a disproportionate amount people in England supporting the NRL exclusively over the SL just as there are a disproportionate amount of Australians supporting the EPL over the A-league? Also if Australians don't concern themselves with things that the nation can't claim to be, or have been, the the best at, then surely they wouldn't concern themselves with soccer and it wouldn't have the highest participation rate of all the football codes in Australia...
  16. You didn't present a hypothesis, you presented a claim without any supporting evidence, and a claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If what you said was true then you'd at least expect a huge amounts of anecdotal evidence to support it, and I simply do not see anybody, let alone a potentially measurable group, complaining that they can't find the time in a week to both play the game and watch it.
  17. You are the one making the claim mate, not me. The onus is on you to provide evidence that it is real not me.
  18. It's happened before and the money has disappeared down a bottomless pit. Besides they are dependant on the NRL as it is, throwing money at them would only make that worse, and that's not in anybodies interest. They're in a hole they can only get themselves out of and the way to do it is to start building income streams that are as independent of influence from the NRL as much as possible.
  19. Because they do nothing to earn it! The NRL (and if we are frank RU) produces all their talent and allows the Warriors to take part in the NRL at their own risk. In other words the NRL along with the Warriors have basically been the only thing that has stopped RL in NZ from falling into total obscurity while the NZRL themselves have done nothing to better themselves for decades now, yet now that the NRL is seeing some kind of return for their trouble people have the gall to demand no strings attached money from the NRL for taking the privilege of doing their job for them. Well no, the NRL and Warriors took all the risk, they should get all the reward, and if you want the same for yourself then get off your ###### and start building something for yourself. Now if you want to work together then I'm open to it, but that means you've got to sacrifice some control to the NRL, and historically they haven't been willing to do that.
  20. Nope experience is definitely the right word. The army of people whom can’t afford the time to both play the game and watch it just isn’t a thing.
  21. Or instead of being leeches the NZRL and grassroots in NZ could get of their ###### and do something for themselves... Honestly the entitlement is astonishing, and tone deaf considering that the NRL has only got the money because of a massive cost cutting spree.
  22. Nothing's stopping you from watching Thursday, Saturday, or Sunday... Why are we creating this weirdly specific situation that isn't at all representative of the vast majority of people's experience?
  23. The ratings simply don't bare that out. Most Aussie football 'fans' you see wearing big European clubs' jerseys are posers frankly. It's more a fashion statement then an actual symbol of their fandom. The same is true of a lot the American sports. Also there's no chance in hell that an EPL team would average 60k a season, well not after the initial novelty period at least. When an EPL team draws 100k in Australia it's because they are drawing people from right across Australia and neighbouring countries because it's a once in a lifetime opportunity to see the team live. You simply wouldn't be able to sustain that sort of support on a bi-weekly basis.
  24. I can say with absolute certainty that that is wrong just from my own experience. If it was correct though then surely you'd want to keep participation as low as possible to maximise the amount of people who have time to watch the professional game.
  25. They probably wouldn't, but then again nothing in PNG generates a great deal of money. If they were played in Australia on the other hand. . . Well who knows. Look I'm not necessarily saying it should happen, in fact because of the impact it'd have here in Australia I'd be pretty against it, but you can't deny that it might be a good way to get them a games more regularly against strong opposition (stronger than most test teams frankly) that might also be more commercially viable. Also an organised calendar will never happen unless the rest of the RLIF agree to let the NRL organise it, which will never happen.
×
×
  • Create New...