Sport Today

by **Sidewind** » Mon, 11 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>If the ARL administration care more about their jobs than the game, why didn't
>they take the offers News Ltd made at the beginning of the battle, they would
>have still had jobs with much better pay?

I don't believe they would have had much better pay. support your statement.

by **Richard Fivea** » Sun, 17 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Wouldn't it be best for News Ltd to allow their players to play in the ARL
competition until the appeal is heard? It allows the clubs to keep a high
profile, keeps their sponsors happy, it keeps the money coming in from gate
takings, TV etc, keeps the fans happy, keeps the players fit if their
competition starts mid-year!

The reason they don't want them to play is if they do it gives the ARL a full
strength competition to be shown on Optus Vision, thereby giving them the edge
in the pay-TV battle.

Richard

by **Darren James Murp** » Sun, 17 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>Wouldn't it be best for News Ltd to allow their players to play in the ARL
>competition until the appeal is heard? It allows the clubs to keep a high
>profile, keeps their sponsors happy, it keeps the money coming in from gate
>takings, TV etc, keeps the fans happy, keeps the players fit if their
>competition starts mid-year!
>The reason they don't want them to play is if they do it gives the ARL a full
>strength competition to be shown on Optus Vision, thereby giving them the edge
>in the pay-TV battle.

You're right. But if you think the ARL's financial backers give a sh*t
what's good for the game, you've been fooled. The ARL's administration
care more about their jobs than the game.

Superleague isn't the only side churning out propaganda, Richard. The
entire war is about pay-TV rights, the good of the game comes second.
I'd say most the players care about the game, but there's only so much
they can do (even though they can do more for it now than they could
before all this crap)

by **Richard Fivea** » Mon, 18 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>You're right. But if you think the ARL's financial backers give a sh*t
>what's good for the game, you've been fooled.

While I'll agree Optus Vision doesn't give a stuff about the game of RL, they
having the TV rights do want the ARL to have the strongest competition, unlike
News Ltd who don't have TV rights and will do anything to get them no matter
what it does to the game.

Quote:

>The ARL's administration
>care more about their jobs than the game.

If the ARL administration care more about their jobs than the game, why didn't
they take the offers News Ltd made at the beginning of the battle, they would
have still had jobs with much better pay?

Quote:

>Superleague isn't the only side churning out propaganda, Richard. The
>entire war is about pay-TV rights, the good of the game comes second.
>I'd say most the players care about the game, but there's only so much
>they can do (even though they can do more for it now than they could
>before all this crap)

True, but it is News Ltd who want the TV rights and are doing all they can to
get it, the other party already has it.

Richard

by **Ashley Wrig** » Mon, 18 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>Wouldn't it be best for News Ltd to allow their players to play in the ARL
>competition until the appeal is heard? It allows the clubs to keep a high
>profile, keeps their sponsors happy, it keeps the money coming in from gate
>takings, TV etc, keeps the fans happy, keeps the players fit if their
>competition starts mid-year!
>The reason they don't want them to play is if they do it gives the ARL a full
>strength competition to be shown on Optus Vision, thereby giving them the edge
>in the pay-TV battle.

Probaly not richard, as I have no doubt that before the SL aligned
players could play in an ARL comp they would have to sign a fresh
contract on the ARL's terms. I have no doubt that news would not be
overly impressed by that.
-------------------------------------------------------
| Ashley Wright, Canberra Australia |

-------------------------------------------------------

by **Darren James Murp** » Mon, 18 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>>You're right. But if you think the ARL's financial backers give a sh*t
>>what's good for the game, you've been fooled.
>While I'll agree Optus Vision doesn't give a stuff about the game of RL, they
>having the TV rights do want the ARL to have the strongest competition, unlike
>News Ltd who don't have TV rights and will do anything to get them no matter
>what it does to the game.

Actually, it's in their best interests to have a healthy game. I'm pretty
sure they're smart enough to realise that. Don't forget that their
ultimate goal is to be the only comp - which wouldnt be unhealthy. I'll
agree two comps is though.

Quote:

>>The ARL's administration
>>care more about their jobs than the game.
>If the ARL administration care more about their jobs than the game, why didn't
>they take the offers News Ltd made at the beginning of the battle, they would
>have still had jobs with much better pay?

Because they had a contract with channel 9. SL wanted to show all
non-televised games on pay-TV. Packer didn't like this, he wanted pay-TV
rights. They didn't want to***off a major sponsor.

Quote:

>>Superleague isn't the only side churning out propaganda, Richard. The
>>entire war is about pay-TV rights, the good of the game comes second.
>>I'd say most the players care about the game, but there's only so much
>>they can do (even though they can do more for it now than they could
>>before all this crap)
>True, but it is News Ltd who want the TV rights and are doing all they can to
>get it, the other party already has it.

Yes, and this party has hurt the game in trying to keep it (Loyalty for 5
years - they can't axe Souths or Gold Coast or Balmain or whoever)

Both sides are to blame. I'll admit SL have done some bad things for the
game. I just want ARL supporters to realise that it's not good vs evil.
It's A vs B.

For the record, I'd be quite happy for the 20 team (or 22, so the Rams
get a go) comp to run this year. With Sl players.

by **john.lancas..** » Tue, 19 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Sorry but in the uk there is no battle in the pat per view market
yet that is

by **Chris Gate** » Wed, 20 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

> >If the ARL administration care more about their jobs than the game, why didn't
> >they take the offers News Ltd made at the beginning of the battle, they would
> >have still had jobs with much better pay?

> I don't believe they would have had much better pay. support your statement.

Why is it ok for you to believe that they would not be better
paid,without supporting your statement.When on the other hand it is not
ok to expect that they PROBABLY would, considering that most of the
other people who were bought off were offered huge salaries?

Chris.

by **Richard Fivea** » Wed, 20 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

> writes:

>>If the ARL administration care more about their jobs than the game, why didn't

>>they take the offers News Ltd made at the beginning of the battle, they would
>>have still had jobs with much better pay?

>I don't believe they would have had much better pay. support your statement.

In the SMH during the court case they had the original SL proposal with Ken
Arthurson as Commissioner (or whatever they called it) and it said what his
salery would be and it said it was somewhat more than he gets now. I know that
newspaper reports aren't necessarily correct.

Richard

by **James Smi** » Thu, 21 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

Ashley Wright writes:
> I have no doubt that before the SL aligned
> players could play in an ARL comp they would have to sign a fresh
> contract on the ARL's terms. I have no doubt that news would not be
> overly impressed by that.

Nobody has said anything about signing new contracts--the players are
already on contract.

Jim
--
James J Smith | One of the biggest obstacles to the future
Faculty of Engineering | of computing is C. C is the last attempt
Newcastle University | of the high priesthood to control the

--------------------------+ and the Pharisees who did not want the
masses to learn to read and write. -- Jerry Pournelle

by **Ashley Wrig** » Thu, 21 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>Ashley Wright writes:
>> I have no doubt that before the SL aligned
>> players could play in an ARL comp they would have to sign a fresh
>> contract on the ARL's terms. I have no doubt that news would not be
>> overly impressed by that.
>Nobody has said anything about signing new contracts--the players are
>already on contract.

Hmmm on contract to news??. What I was saying is that I would imagine
that before the players registration was accepted by the NSWRl/ARL
that they would be required to sign a contract approved by the ARL.
-------------------------------------------------------
| Ashley Wright, Canberra Australia |

-------------------------------------------------------

by **Richard Fivea** » Thu, 21 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>Hmmm on contract to news??. What I was saying is that I would imagine
>that before the players registration was accepted by the NSWRl/ARL
>that they would be required to sign a contract approved by the ARL.

Most of the players already have valid contracts to play for the ARL, they
were illegal released from those contracts by the SL clubs last year.

Richard

by **Sidewind** » Thu, 21 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>Xref: news.gil.com.au aus.sport.rugby-league:4709 rec.sport.rugby.league:2178
>Path:
>news.gil.com.au!news.bri.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!news.mel.connect
>.com.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!the-fly.zip.com.au!ausne
>t

>Newsgroups: aus.sport.rugby-league,rec.sport.rugby.league
>Subject: Re: News Ltd doesn't care what's best for RL
>Date: Tue, 19 Mar 96 00:15:50 GMT
>Organization: The Zipsters
>Lines: 21

>NNTP-Posting-Host: woggle7.zip.com.au
>X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.0 Beta #0

>> writes:

>>>If the ARL administration care more about their jobs than the game, why didn't

>>>they take the offers News Ltd made at the beginning of the battle, they would
>>>have still had jobs with much better pay?

>>I don't believe they would have had much better pay. support your statement.

>In the SMH during the court case they had the original SL proposal with Ken
>Arthurson as Commissioner (or whatever they called it) and it said what his
>salery would be and it said it was somewhat more than he gets now. I know that
>newspaper reports aren't necessarily correct.

Firstly there is more in a job than the pay, There is power. And that lot at
ARL HQ would have substancially less of it. Secondly your last sentence in
the last paragragh states you doubt the source yourself. How could you
posssibly use it as fact in an arguement.

by **Richard Fivea** » Fri, 29 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>>In the SMH during the court case they had the original SL proposal with Ken
>>Arthurson as Commissioner (or whatever they called it) and it said what his
>>salery would be and it said it was somewhat more than he gets now. I know that

>>newspaper reports aren't necessarily correct.

>Firstly there is more in a job than the pay, There is power. And that lot at
>ARL HQ would have substancially less of it. Secondly your last sentence in
>the last paragragh states you doubt the source yourself. How could you
>posssibly use it as fact in an arguement.

Well the commissioner usually is the head of the heirachy as in the AFL so he
would have much the same influence as he has now. It has been verified by
other posters, but as far as I knew it was correct but I was hedging my bets.

Richard