NRL demands for investment

[Adelaide Tiger]

3 minutes ago, phiggins said:

How can it be a simple choice, without knowing the details of the offer to go in a different direction?

Has there been a formal proposal put forward? Or do we just have a SMH article that is based on Beaumont style bluster from and NRL CEO?

Where did I say a choice must be made now?

Obviously a choice can only be made when all information is available.  Then, in my view, you are at a stage when it is a simple choice between retaining the status quo or having the NRL involved in some form.

[up the robins]

A reduced league to 10 teams will do more damage to the sport.

The aim would be that those 10 teams would get a greater share of funding, which will create a bigger divide between the super league and lower leagues.

It would be foolish to believe any extra funding will make the clubs more financially stable, as all that will happen is players and agent's will demand more money.

Look at Wigans team compared to any NRL team,they are running on a fraction of the the NRL budgets but would be a match for any on the pitch. 

More money being thrown at the clubs won't solve the sports problems, any investment in super league should be thrown at promotion of the game expanding and growing the sport at all levels and having a league that has variety not playing the same teams 4 or 5 times a season.

For me it has to be a minimum of 12 but would prefer 14 with a view to  moving to 16 I don't see hiw reducing a product would improve its appeal.

 

 

[Adelaide Tiger]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

IMG is "going in a different direction"

Adding two players and line outs is "going in a different direction"

Removing the French clubs and reinstating Huyton is "going in a different direction"

Yes, IMG is ‘going in a different direction’ and I welcomed and have supported IMG’s involvement and I hope that they fulfil their 12 year agreement irrespective of whether the NRL is involved or not.

If you feel that my wording of ‘different direction’ is not appropriate, then I will say ‘or look at alternative options’.  Is that better?

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Then, in my view, you are at a stage when it is a simple choice between retaining the status quo or having the NRL involved in some form.

This is just completely wrong. 

[Adelaide Tiger]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

This is just completely wrong. 

So what do you think the options would be?