Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

This is a very good point.

The Fox League ratings indicate modest crossover between games. Few people watch 8 games a week. Some might watch 2 or 3. Many will only watch 1, i.e. the one involving the club they have a personal attachment to. These viewers are all across Australia.

It shows up most tellingly in the Warriors` games, where their ratings don`t include all their supporters watching on Sky in NZ.

Yeah, though I think its important not to understate the value of the casual fan who watches a few games a week - as what the NRL and other TV sports have done is adapt their offerings for that market (Thursday nights, Friday Nights, Monday Nights etc) on top of the already popular slots on the weekend. They aren't a homogenous blob that watch every game, but across a round of matches they are vital to keeping the basic ratings steady.

Equally clubs clearly have picked up followings outside their immediate vicinity very well as all successful sports teams do.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You ` struggle to see what the love for V`landy`s is..` given the directionless incompetence that is driving the game in your part of the world into oblivion, that`s priceless. Rugby League southern h

Brisbane 2, NZ 2 and conferences are still possibilities! Brisbane 2 estimated to be worth $50 million a year to the NRL. https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-premiership/nrl-2021-second-bri

The gaming laws obviously had an impact in sucking some talent south. But to say that without that there’s some alternate history available with strong Bush sides and a similar number of viable teams

Posted Images

5 hours ago, Cumbrian Mackem said:

Very informative reply rocket. Who funds manly? A rich backer or a strong leagues club setup?

Is there any chance of the sea Eagles moving up the coast to gosford?

The Penn family headed by Scott Penn own the club,there is a Manly Leagues club,who fund the Sea Eagles youth & community programmes.

I’d say there is no chance of them moving to Gosford,not sure they’d be made welcome after the ending of the joint venture.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/02/2021 at 05:06, The Great Dane said:

Firstly, the NSWRL's growth to be the national competition had nothing to do with the popularity of the clubs outside of Sydney. It was because they had the biggest leagues clubs, and as such had the money to suck all the talent out of their competitors competitions and then takeover their 'territory'. Change that accident of history and make it so pokies are legal in Queensland, or some more of the clubs in the bush have the finances to compete with the Sydney clubs, and the whole history of RL in Australia is turned on it's head.

Also a following outside of their Sydney base doesn't mean anything if you can't monetise it to make the club financially sustainable, and with the possible exception of Souths, none of them have been capable of truly monetising their support outside Sydney.

It's also true that the majority of any teams supporters will live within an hour of the teams home ground, and that those fans will spend significantly more on the club on average than fans outside of it. In other words it's insane to bank on fans from the bush to sustain a club, and the clubs should be doing everything in their power to grow their support locally. 


The gaming laws obviously had an impact in sucking some talent south. But to say that without that there’s some alternate history available with strong Bush sides and a similar number of viable teams in Brisbane is nuts. It comes down to population and market size, so would’ve happened anyway just with a slightly different tinge 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/02/2021 at 20:52, Tommygilf said:

You do realise arguing a hypothesis that didn't happen doesn't prove transpired reality wrong?

It's a good job that I didn't argue a hypothesis that didn't happen then isn't it.

Read the discussion again, he says "Sydney clubs have ALWAYS transcended their boarders that's why it became the league that grew into the national competition". That's just a total rewriting of history.

It spread to be the national competition because it had rich leagues clubs that could afford to pay players significantly more on average than the other regions whose leagues clubs, on average, weren't as big and/or profitable for all sorts of reasons.

What happened is the NSWRL clubs would suck most of the best talent out of a region, that would undermine that regions local competition's business and they would fall on hard times as a result, and then that competition and the sport would stagnate or start to die. The NSWRL saw this, panicked because they were reliant on talent from those regions to field their competition, and started to push for national growth to combat it, which then had a domino effect on the other regions.

In other words the NSWRL's growth had absolutely nothing to do with the popularity of the competition outside of Sydney, and in fact if you look at the size of clubs at that time the NSWRL clubs weren't much bigger than many of the clubs from larger cities and towns, particularly in places like Brisbane, Newcastle, Queanbeyan, etc.

It's also not unreasonable to suggest that in some cases that if one tiny thing changes the whole history of RL in Australia would be completely different. Change the fact that Queensland happened to be run by puritans who banned pokies in the 50s, then the BRL clubs have the money to compete and the NSWRL can't domineer them like they did, as a result SOO probably never happens, the Broncos definitely never happen, and you probably end up with a merger between the NSWRL and BRL competitions (like the NFL and AFL in America) instead of the NSWRL chewing up the BRL's market the way they did.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

It's a good job that I didn't argue a hypothesis that didn't happen then isn't it.

Read the discussion again, he says "Sydney clubs have ALWAYS transcended their boarders that's why it became the league that grew into the national competition". That's just a total rewriting of history.

It spread to be the national competition because it had rich leagues clubs that could afford to pay players significantly more on average than the other regions whose leagues clubs, on average, weren't as big and/or profitable for all sorts of reasons.

What happened is the NSWRL clubs would suck most of the best talent out of a region, that would undermine that regions local competition's business and they would fall on hard times as a result, and then that competition and the sport would stagnate or start to die. The NSWRL saw this, panicked because they were reliant on talent from those regions to field their competition, and started to push for national growth to combat it, which then had a domino effect on the other regions.

In other words the NSWRL's growth had absolutely nothing to do with the popularity of the competition outside of Sydney, and in fact if you look at the size of clubs at that time the NSWRL clubs weren't much bigger than many of the clubs from larger cities and towns, particularly in places like Brisbane, Newcastle, Queanbeyan, etc.

It's also not unreasonable to suggest that in some cases that if one tiny thing changes the whole history of RL in Australia would be completely different. Change the fact that Queensland happened to be run by puritans who banned pokies in the 50s, then the BRL clubs have the money to compete and the NSWRL can't domineer them like they did, as a result SOO probably never happens, the Broncos definitely never happen, and you probably end up with a merger between the NSWRL and BRL competitions (like the NFL and AFL in America) instead of the NSWRL chewing up the BRL's market the way they did.

Lovely proving of my point right there, honestly couldn't have done it better myself! How many ifs could you get in there? 

You're now also saying it had "nothing to do with the popularity of the competition outside of Sydney", a point that is patently false. Sydney was and, despite what most Melbourners will have you believe, remains the most influential city in Australia. What you call stripping the assets bare is what most people would call the effects of the free market - the best players move to the biggest clubs to earn the most money which, guess what, for most of the past 112 years have been in the NSWRL. Raging against the machine on that front sounds like York City blaming Man United for why they aren't a top team! Its simple economics, its why Toowoomba is smaller than Brisbane too, so its not discrimination against Queensland - there's just always a bigger fish.

The Sydney clubs, much like the top eschelon of Premier League teams or the NFL franchises, have rather impressively garnered followings all over the country. Of course that didn't happen over night, but to suggest that it hasn't been the case for the best part of half a century is, to be kind, alternative history. How they got there is in large part irrelevant to this debate, unless you want to make the argument that being the biggest is some kind of sinful activity? 

Regardless, by being the biggest clubs in the biggest competition they gained following all over and became even bigger!

The BRL teams never reached the same heights as the NSWRL teams, hampered as they were by being generally smaller teams in a smaller, less media and finance dominating city in Australia. That's not a criticism, its a fact. The NSWRL was bigger and more successful, which is why its remnants still remain the core of the hugely successful NRL. Mergers generally only happen between relatively equal partners, the BRL and NSWRL were certainly never that from at least the mid 70s onwards when the simple economics of professional sport started to flex its muscles. 

Edited by Tommygilf
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/02/2021 at 19:22, Hull Kingston Bronco said:


The gaming laws obviously had an impact in sucking some talent south. But to say that without that there’s some alternate history available with strong Bush sides and a similar number of viable teams in Brisbane is nuts. It comes down to population and market size, so would’ve happened anyway just with a slightly different tinge 

 

Not all markets are equal.

Even after the BRL had started to fall on hard times in the late 70s-mid 80s, the average BRL team was just as popular locally as the average NSWRL team was in Sydney. In other words, RL was way more popular per capita in Brisbane than it was in Sydney (and that's still the case to this day). 

Give them similar resources to those that the NSWRL clubs were getting through their pokies and you'd almost totally steam the flow of players heading south through the years. If most of the star players don't move south during the 70s, and particularly the 80s, then their competition continues to be viewed as an equal to the NSWRL, if their competition is viewed as an equal interest in the competition doesn't slide, if interest in the competition doesn't slide their local broadcasting deal continues to be competitive with the NSWRL's, then there never would have been a market for the Broncos and the NSWRL wouldn't have been able to muscle in on the BRL's market as easily, then at that point the whole history of RL not just in Australia, but in the entire world, is completely different.

You can do a similar alternate history with some of the regional markets, particularly Newcastle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

Not all markets are equal.

Even after the BRL had started to fall on hard times in the late 70s-mid 80s, the average BRL team was just as popular locally as the average NSWRL team was in Sydney. In other words, RL was way more popular per capita in Brisbane than it was in Sydney (and that's still the case to this day). 

Give them similar resources to those that the NSWRL clubs were getting through their pokies and you'd almost totally steam the flow of players heading south through the years. If most of the star players don't move south during the 70s, and particularly the 80s, then their competition continues to be viewed as an equal to the NSWRL, if their competition is viewed as an equal interest in the competition doesn't slide, if interest in the competition doesn't slide their local broadcasting deal continues to be competitive with the NSWRL's, then there never would have been a market for the Broncos and the NSWRL wouldn't have been able to muscle in on the BRL's market as easily, then at that point the whole history of RL not just in Australia, but in the entire world, is completely different.

You can do a similar alternate history with some of the regional markets, particularly Newcastle.

Sorry mate I appreciate some of your points, clearly BRL would’ve been stronger having retained the best QLD talent and maybe 3 or 4 clubs may have made a national comp in that model.
 

But attendances aren’t the major issue here. Sydney population is 4x or greater that of greater Brisbane, and it’s the leading city in the country - where all the big swinging d*cks gravitate. That plays into TV audiences and sponsorship revenue. Brisbane is a provincial market in comparison 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Lovely proving of my point right there, honestly couldn't have done it better myself! How many ifs could you get in there?

There isn't one what if in the main body of my argument. So yeah, you are massively full of .

The rest of your argument is BS because it assumes that all the clubs were competing on equal footing in a free market, they weren't.

Why weren't they you ask? Because the laws surrounding gambling and pokies were radically different in each state and territory. 

That means in certain states the clubs had a massive advantage because their leagues clubs could have pokies (or significantly more pokies), where as others could not. Particularly in the case the of Queensland, where it was illegal for leagues clubs to have them, this had a huge impact.

That meant that despite the fact that many of the BRL clubs had just as, if not more, successful football businesses than many of their NSWRL competitors, that the NSWRL clubs were significantly richer than their BRL counterparts, which obviously gave them a massive advantage.

In other words, the BRL clubs were forced to take a knife to a gun fight.

Take away that inherent advantage, or give the BRL their own guns, and the NSWRL doesn't grow anywhere near as big in Brisbane, or Queensland more generally, as it did, because guess what, as I alluded to before, despite being in markets of smaller size, sometimes significantly smaller, the NSWRL wasn't outcompeting the local clubs in popularity on a local scale because many of those clubs were of a similar size, if not bigger than in a lot of cases, the average NSWRL club.

To give you the TL;DR, the NSWRL didn't spread through it's popularity, in other words by putting clubs in new markets and outcompeting the local competition. It spread by using money, that it gained through an advantage that their competitors were restricted from accessing, to totally destroy their competition before they even came into direct competition with them, then simply waltzed in and took over the market more or less uncontested.

That's not to say that the NSWRL did it cynically, because they didn't, it was just an accident of history that they happened to benefit from, but it is what happened and to pretend otherwise is either ignorance, stupidity, or a mix of both.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Sorry mate I appreciate some of your points, clearly BRL would’ve been stronger having retained the best QLD talent and maybe 3 or 4 clubs may have made a national comp in that model.
 

But attendances aren’t the major issue here. Sydney population is 4x or greater that of greater Brisbane, and it’s the leading city in the country - where all the big swinging d*cks gravitate. That plays into TV audiences and sponsorship revenue. Brisbane is a provincial market in comparison 

Sydney's population is just over twice as large as Brisbane's, not 4x or greater. And though this may have changed because of covid, Brisbane's growth rate is on a greater upward trend than Sydney's.

Brisbane, and Queensland more generally, may not have an economy as large as NSW, however, covid aside, they're not lacking cash either. There's a huge amount of sponsor and corporate interest in RL in Queensland, so much so that corporates and broadcasters are constantly begging for more NRL teams in Queensland, and particularly in Brisbane, hence why the NRL is expanding to Brisbane over new markets. Hypothetically Queensland could easily support a conference of NRL clubs of similar size to the Sydney clubs, for all sorts of reasons that shouldn't happen, but there's no reason why it couldn't.

Sydney is only the cultural hegemon of Australia in the minds of people in Sydney.

Melbourne has been culturally dominant for going on 25-30 years now, and the slow movement of the Barassi line further north is one of the better measures of that. All that Sydney has over Melbourne at this point is that it's population is bigger, but even that won't be the case in the next decade.

Finally, you could just as easily you use your arguments to say that that the biggest football clubs in London will be bigger than the biggest ones in Manchester, which we both know isn't the case either because population doesn't equal demand.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

There isn't one what if in the main body of my argument. So yeah, you are massively full of .

The rest of your argument is BS because it assumes that all the clubs were competing on equal footing in a free market, they weren't.

Why weren't they you ask? Because the laws surrounding gambling and pokies were radically different in each state and territory. 

That means in certain states the clubs had a massive advantage because their leagues clubs could have pokies (or significantly more pokies), where as others could not. Particularly in the case the of Queensland, where it was illegal for leagues clubs to have them, this had a huge impact.

That meant that despite the fact that many of the BRL clubs had just as, if not more, successful football businesses than many of their NSWRL competitors, that the NSWRL clubs were significantly richer than their BRL counterparts, which obviously gave them a massive advantage.

In other words, the BRL clubs were forced to take a knife to a gun fight.

Take away that inherent advantage, or give the BRL their own guns, and the NSWRL doesn't grow anywhere near as big in Brisbane, or Queensland more generally, as it did, because guess what, as I alluded to before, despite being in markets of smaller size, sometimes significantly smaller, the NSWRL wasn't outcompeting the local clubs in popularity on a local scale because many of those clubs were of a similar size, if not bigger than in a lot of cases, the average NSWRL club.

To give you the TL;DR, the NSWRL didn't spread through it's popularity, in other words by putting clubs in new markets and outcompeting the local competition. It spread by using money, that it gained through an advantage that their competitors were restricted from accessing, to totally destroy their competition before they even came into direct competition with them, then simply waltzed in and took over the market more or less uncontested.

That's not to say that the NSWRL did it cynically, because they didn't, it was just an accident of history that they happened to benefit from, but it is what happened and to pretend otherwise is either ignorance, stupidity, or a mix of both.

The entirety of your argument rests on the precondition that "IF" Queensland had similar gambling laws to NSW then the BRL clubs would have been just as big as the NSWRL clubs and they wouldn't have been outgrown. 

Not only is that a massive "IF", but it also flies in the face of the reality of everything else that entered the equation to make Sydney and its surroundings more important and wealthy.

You're now saying it didn't spread because it was popular but because it was wealthy, I'd argue the former is a direct result of the latter in a virtuously growing cycle. All the best players were drawn into the NSWRL, the BRL became a "local" feeder comp. There's a reason all the interest, players and money went into the NSWRL, its clubs, and its expansion not to other places for exactly the same reason the Premier League gets more of those things than the Vanarama National league.

Equally by now arguing that you are at least admitting your original point was wrong, and that the NSWRL teams were/are popular outside their immediate environs - though you dispute the legitimacy of it because they used their greater financial resources to achieve this? 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The entirety of your argument rests on the precondition that "IF" Queensland had similar gambling laws to NSW then the BRL clubs would have been just as big as the NSWRL clubs and they wouldn't have been outgrown. 

Not only is that a massive "IF", but it also flies in the face of the reality of everything else that entered the equation to make Sydney and its surroundings more important and wealthy.

You're now saying it didn't spread because it was popular but because it was wealthy, I'd argue the former is a direct result of the latter in a virtuously growing cycle. All the best players were drawn into the NSWRL, the BRL became a "local" feeder comp. There's a reason all the interest, players and money went into the NSWRL, its clubs, and its expansion not to other places for exactly the same reason the Premier League gets more of those things than the Vanarama National league.

Equally by now arguing that you are at least admitting your original point was wrong, and that the NSWRL teams were/are popular outside their immediate environs - though you dispute the legitimacy of it because they used their greater financial resources to achieve this? 

Except that the NSWRL weren't wealthy because of their football operations!

Aside from specific exceptions when certain clubs were going through periods of significant success, every single one of the NSWRL clubs football teams were loss making enterprises that were propped up by pokies.

In other words they weren't even popular enough to support themselves, and if they didn't have the pokies every single one of them would have folded!

So from the very beginning you've got everything ###### backwards because you fail to understand that the BRL clubs (and others) weren't competing with the popularity of NSWRL teams, they were competing with the popularity of pokies in the working class parts of Sydney.

So there's no what if about it, Australia has consistent laws on gambling, and specifically pokies, throughout it's existence then everything changes for RL not only in this country, but the whole world. And if you are seriously going to argue that is a what if fallacy then there's no helping you.

And I don't know how you can possibly pretend to sit their and ignore the fact that effectively having a monopoly on pokies was a monumental, and totally unfair, advantage, that (corruption aside) wouldn't have been allowed in any other industry. But here you are pretending that that elephant isn't in the room. 

I also haven't moved an inch from my original point, the NSWRL didn't grow into the national competition because of it's popularity inside or outside of Sydney. Popularity didn't come into it in the slightest. Most popular, least popular, somewhere in between, it wouldn't have made any difference, they still would have become the dominant league because of the financial advantages that they had because of pokies. Pretending otherwise is just choosing to live in fanciful narrative.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

Except that the NSWRL weren't wealthy because of their football operations!

Aside from specific exceptions when certain clubs were going through periods of significant success, every single one of the NSWRL clubs football teams were loss making enterprises that were propped up by pokies.

In other words they weren't even popular enough to support themselves, and if they didn't have the pokies every single one of them would have folded!

So from the very beginning you've got everything ###### backwards because you fail to understand that the BRL clubs (and others) weren't competing with the popularity of NSWRL teams, they were competing with the popularity of pokies in the working class parts of Sydney.

So there's no what if about it, Australia has consistent laws on gambling, and specifically pokies, throughout it's existence then everything changes for RL not only in this country, but the whole world. And if you are seriously going to argue that is a what if fallacy then there's no helping you.

And I don't know how you can possibly pretend to sit their and ignore the fact that effectively having a monopoly on pokies was a monumental, and totally unfair, advantage, that (corruption aside) wouldn't have been allowed in any other industry. But here you are pretending that that elephant isn't in the room. 

I also haven't moved an inch from my original point, the NSWRL didn't grow into the national competition because of it's popularity inside or outside of Sydney. Popularity didn't come into it in the slightest. Most popular, least popular, somewhere in between, it wouldn't have made any difference, they still would have become the dominant league because of the financial advantages that they had because of pokies. Pretending otherwise is just choosing to live in fanciful narrative.

Evidently you have an ingrained dislike of NSW, judging by your other posts that even goes as far as saying Melbourne is bigger/better (insert superlative) than Sydney. 

Australia didn't have consistent laws on gambling, Sydney was and is still the largest commercial and media centre in the country, and the BRL wasn't the NSWRLs equal from at least the 1970s. Arguing why that is the case is a different argument from disputing that case entirely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

Except that the NSWRL weren't wealthy because of their football operations!

Aside from specific exceptions when certain clubs were going through periods of significant success, every single one of the NSWRL clubs football teams were loss making enterprises that were propped up by pokies.

In other words they weren't even popular enough to support themselves, and if they didn't have the pokies every single one of them would have folded!

So from the very beginning you've got everything ###### backwards because you fail to understand that the BRL clubs (and others) weren't competing with the popularity of NSWRL teams, they were competing with the popularity of pokies in the working class parts of Sydney.

So there's no what if about it, Australia has consistent laws on gambling, and specifically pokies, throughout it's existence then everything changes for RL not only in this country, but the whole world. And if you are seriously going to argue that is a what if fallacy then there's no helping you.

And I don't know how you can possibly pretend to sit their and ignore the fact that effectively having a monopoly on pokies was a monumental, and totally unfair, advantage, that (corruption aside) wouldn't have been allowed in any other industry. But here you are pretending that that elephant isn't in the room. 

I also haven't moved an inch from my original point, the NSWRL didn't grow into the national competition because of it's popularity inside or outside of Sydney. Popularity didn't come into it in the slightest. Most popular, least popular, somewhere in between, it wouldn't have made any difference, they still would have become the dominant league because of the financial advantages that they had because of pokies. Pretending otherwise is just choosing to live in fanciful narrative.

One view often repeated is that it was the availability of League`s Club funding that made NSWRL clubs lazy in developing other revenue streams and in fact has probably held the game back in this state.

The availability of Leagues Club funding meant that other revenue streams were never fully developed, i.e. sponsorships, merchandising, related businesses, increasing crowd numbers and the associated game day revenue were all neglected to the detriment of the overall growth of clubs and the game.

This is reflected in the fact that TV Broadcast revenue makes up 75% of total NRL income and only 50% of afl total income. And their deal is considerably bigger than ours. They had to develop other sources of income which now compliments their broadcast income. We didn`t.

 Leagues Club funding has been decreasing for years now, and they seem to have become a `lender of last resort` begrudgingly making up the shortfall at the Football club. To quote Warren Buffet:" it`s only when the tide goes out do you discover who`s been swimming naked'. There`s quite a few Rugby Leagues clubs who have been caught with their pants down when the funding hasn`t been there from the Leagues Club.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest from V'landys, he's not keen on a licencing fee for the new Brisbane club and has the dangerously radical view that the 16 existing teams should put the well-being of the game first:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/stop-self-interest-v-landys-not-keen-on-expansion-licence-fee-20210214-p572d0.html

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Whippet13 said:

Latest from V'landys, he's not keen on a licencing fee for the new Brisbane club and has the dangerously radical view that the 16 existing teams should put the well-being of the game first:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/stop-self-interest-v-landys-not-keen-on-expansion-licence-fee-20210214-p572d0.html

The very good article i was just about to paste on this forum and wise words from Peter V'landys again and perhaps some in the game need to read here.

Edited by The Future is League
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Whippet13 said:

Latest from V'landys, he's not keen on a licencing fee for the new Brisbane club and has the dangerously radical view that the 16 existing teams should put the well-being of the game first:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/stop-self-interest-v-landys-not-keen-on-expansion-licence-fee-20210214-p572d0.html

Its good to hear him come out with statements like that. Self interest has done more harm to the game than anything else over the last couple of decades.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The Future is League said:

The very good article i was just about to paste on this forum and wise words from Peter V'landys again and perhaps some in the game need to read here.

 

13 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

Latest from V'landys, he's not keen on a licencing fee for the new Brisbane club and has the dangerously radical view that the 16 existing teams should put the well-being of the game first:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/stop-self-interest-v-landys-not-keen-on-expansion-licence-fee-20210214-p572d0.html

 

13 hours ago, Damien said:

Its good to hear him come out with statements like that. Self interest has done more harm to the game than anything else over the last couple of decades.

Before we get too excited let`s not forget it was only 2 weeks ago he was announcing the that Club bosses and senior Club administrators have now only to wait 1 year instead of 3 to join the ARL Commission as Board members.

The original 3 years was there to allow a `cooling off` period before they came onto a board that makes the major decisions that decide the direction on the game. There was also the motive that ex-club bosses and administrators would find something else to do and that would help to keep them off the commission.

The updated rationale behind reducing it to 1 year was that `we need the best people on the commission`.

So what is it ? An independent commission free of club appointees making decisions that the clubs mightn`t always like but benefit the game or the best people for the job straight out of club land with club agendas like licensing fees.

Don`t like it, club bosses can still have their input but keep the board for experts from different fields that can advance the game free from fear or favour.

Edited by The Rocket
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 07/02/2021 at 16:06, The Great Dane said:

Firstly, the NSWRL's growth to be the national competition had nothing to do with the popularity of the clubs outside of Sydney. It was because they had the biggest leagues clubs, and as such had the money to suck all the talent out of their competitors competitions and then takeover their 'territory'. Change that accident of history and make it so pokies are legal in Queensland, or some more of the clubs in the bush have the finances to compete with the Sydney clubs, and the whole history of RL in Australia is turned on it's head.

Also a following outside of their Sydney base doesn't mean anything if you can't monetise it to make the club financially sustainable, and with the possible exception of Souths, none of them have been capable of truly monetising their support outside Sydney.

It's also true that the majority of any teams supporters will live within an hour of the teams home ground, and that those fans will spend significantly more on the club on average than fans outside of it. In other words it's insane to bank on fans from the bush to sustain a club, and the clubs should be doing everything in their power to grow their support locally. 

The games growth was on the back of it's popularity driven by TV which attracted big business.

Alot of those people watching the game lived outside Sydney.

You can change history in your head as much as you like but the facts are the facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/02/2021 at 15:50, The Great Dane said:

Only if you consider getting lucky and finding a Hollywood star with rich mates willing to bankroll the club, or lucking out and having an already established leagues club in a growth corridor, "good management".

Unless you can convince Hugh Jackman to get some mates together and blow tens of millions of dollars saving the Sea Eagles, it's pretty unlikely that they'll be so fortunate.

Rubbish. The way the game is funded and managed today is miles from how it was in the 80's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/02/2021 at 19:51, The Rocket said:

 

 

Before we get too excited let`s not forget it was only 2 weeks ago he was announcing the that Club bosses and senior Club administrators have now only to wait 1 year instead of 3 to join the ARL Commission as Board members.

The original 3 years was there to allow a `cooling off` period before they came onto a board that makes the major decisions that decide the direction on the game. There was also the motive that ex-club bosses and administrators would find something else to do and that would help to keep them off the commission.

The updated rationale behind reducing it to 1 year was that `we need the best people on the commission`.

So what is it ? An independent commission free of club appointees making decisions that the clubs mightn`t always like but benefit the game or the best people for the job straight out of club land with club agendas like licensing fees.

Don`t like it, club bosses can still have their input but keep the board for experts from different fields that can advance the game free from fear or favour.

It was obviously changed with particular people in mind.

Is Politis quitting the Roosters?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rlno1 said:

It was obviously changed with particular people in mind.

Is Politis quitting the Roosters?

I think Pappas from Souths was another one mentioned. Not sure about Politis`s intentions probably just thinking ahead, I believe he has a son who might take over the family interests and leave Nick to sit on boards or whatever. BTW the sons mad about the Roosters so good to see that running in the family.

My initial thoughts were when that waiting period for the commission was changed V`landy`s was attempting to keep the club bosses on side, Politis was one of the main critics of the initial six-again rule change when it came out, and some saw it as one of the first great tests of V`landy`s leadership, the waiting period change may have been the pay-off.

There is no doubt that there is some great business brains and strategic thinkers in club land, but it worries me if they can keep their club loyalties at arms length. It is being said that the clubs now have greater say over the running of the game anytime since the formation of the commission. That makes me nervous.

Having said all that I`ll still back V`landy`s to make things happen, at least the good thing about blokes like Politis is that they are filthy rich, ambitious and well connected and we`re not talking about characters from impoverished clubs trying to protect their patch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...