Cronulla running scared

Cronulla running scared

Post by Matthew O'Neil » Sat, 18 Jul 1998 04:00:00


Hello,

I don't know how many of you get the Daily Telegrpah-Mirror.

AAP, Sportswatch has a piece on the Cronulla move.
http://www.sportswatch.com.au/sm-html/spo_rgl.html

<start>
There's a new twist in the propsed St George-Illawarra National Rugby
League merger with Cronulla reportedly entering partnership talks with
the Steelers.

The Daily Telegraph says a Cronulla source has confirmed the club will
consider a merger with Illawarra in a desperate bid to avoid being
freezed out of the NRL's 14-team premiership.

Steelers chief executive BOB MILLWARD has confirmed his club has had
contact with the Sharks but he says Illawarra's preference for a partner
is St George.

And the Sydney Morning Herald reports South Sydney and Penrith have held
meetings in which a merger between the two clubs was discussed.

AAP RTV ws/sm
AAP, 17/07/98 04:22 AEST
<end>

I knew once the Saints and Steelers got into full merger talks the
Sharks will be running scared. They are in grave danger of missing the
cut.

If Wests and Penrith happen to do a deal and then Parramatta and
Balmain, I know as a Bulldog fan I be very nervous.

If that was the case, you have
1. St. George Steel Dragons
2. Parramatta Tigers
3. Western Panthers
4. Sydney City Roosters  (Packer alliance will see them be safe).
5. Manly Sea Eagles  (They ran the ARL who is half the NRL, so they are
safe).

Then you have Cronulla, Canterbury and South Sydney remaining. If the
Rabbitohs continue the Piggins attitude, we be the safest of the 3 to be
stand alone in a NRL competition as we are financially secure and not in
turmoil. But if the Sharks and Bunnies do a deal, Canterbury will be
squeezed out.

I'm hoping Wests and Penrith do not do a deal in mergers, same I guess
applies to Cronulla in they don't want to see a stronger southern
franchise with them missing out.

Also, it is all agreed that Adelaide and Gold Coast are the two regional
teams in danger, if they do deals with Sydney clubs, they get an
automatic 5-year licence and then that will place some pressure on North
Sydney and Auckland.

Matthew.
http://www.rleague.com

-----------

 
 
 

Cronulla running scared

Post by Greg Pankhur » Sat, 18 Jul 1998 04:00:00


:Also, it is all agreed that Adelaide and Gold Coast are the two regional
:teams in danger, if they do deals with Sydney clubs, they get an
:automatic 5-year licence and then that will place some pressure on North
:Sydney and Auckland.

w.r.t. mergers, no-one is going to be running to the Gold Coast...there's
nothing they've got to offer. Adelaide is moderately more attractive, but
you've still got the problem of moving to a whole new state, which is close
enough to death for many (I reckon it beats death by a mile actually).

And I'd even toss Melbourne in as under threat....apart from their on-field
success, they haven't exactly set the world on fire.

Greg
_____________________________________________________________________
Greg Pankhurst                   NQ Cowboys Supporters Club of Sydney

_____________________________________________________________________
                Go the Cowboys - NRL Champions in 98
_____________________________________________________________________

 
 
 

Cronulla running scared

Post by WiganRLf » Sat, 18 Jul 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

>:Also, it is all agreed that Adelaide and Gold Coast are the two regional
>:teams in danger,
<snip>

>And I'd even toss Melbourne in as under threat....apart from their on-field
>success, they haven't exactly set the world on fire.

Could some please explain to this UK RL fan why any regional teams are under
threat at all?

I would have thought they would be guaranteed entry into a "national"
competition and if they had any financial or other problems that they would be
bailed out to keep the game truly national.

As to Melbourne its a bit soon, is it not, to be considering omitting them for
off field failures when they have only been in existence such a short time.
Give em a chance.

UK RL administration is the pits but if Australia start cutting teams outside
NSW they will have IMO sunk to the UK level.

Dave

--
Wigan RLFC - getting back to being Simply the best -

(remove the letter t from clarat if replying via email)

 
 
 

Cronulla running scared

Post by ross » Sat, 18 Jul 1998 04:00:00

And to think many of these Sydney clubs sold their souls because they
thought it would ensure their long term survival.

Ross



Quote:
> Hello,

> I don't know how many of you get the Daily Telegrpah-Mirror.

> AAP, Sportswatch has a piece on the Cronulla move.
> http://www.sportswatch.com.au/sm-html/spo_rgl.html

> <start>
> There's a new twist in the propsed St George-Illawarra National Rugby
> League merger with Cronulla reportedly entering partnership talks with
> the Steelers.

> The Daily Telegraph says a Cronulla source has confirmed the club will
> consider a merger with Illawarra in a desperate bid to avoid being
> freezed out of the NRL's 14-team premiership.

> Steelers chief executive BOB MILLWARD has confirmed his club has had
> contact with the Sharks but he says Illawarra's preference for a partner
> is St George.

> And the Sydney Morning Herald reports South Sydney and Penrith have held
> meetings in which a merger between the two clubs was discussed.

> AAP RTV ws/sm
> AAP, 17/07/98 04:22 AEST
> <end>

> I knew once the Saints and Steelers got into full merger talks the
> Sharks will be running scared. They are in grave danger of missing the
> cut.

> If Wests and Penrith happen to do a deal and then Parramatta and
> Balmain, I know as a Bulldog fan I be very nervous.

> If that was the case, you have
> 1. St. George Steel Dragons
> 2. Parramatta Tigers
> 3. Western Panthers
> 4. Sydney City Roosters  (Packer alliance will see them be safe).
> 5. Manly Sea Eagles  (They ran the ARL who is half the NRL, so they are
> safe).

> Then you have Cronulla, Canterbury and South Sydney remaining. If the
> Rabbitohs continue the Piggins attitude, we be the safest of the 3 to be
> stand alone in a NRL competition as we are financially secure and not in
> turmoil. But if the Sharks and Bunnies do a deal, Canterbury will be
> squeezed out.

> I'm hoping Wests and Penrith do not do a deal in mergers, same I guess
> applies to Cronulla in they don't want to see a stronger southern
> franchise with them missing out.

> Also, it is all agreed that Adelaide and Gold Coast are the two regional
> teams in danger, if they do deals with Sydney clubs, they get an
> automatic 5-year licence and then that will place some pressure on North
> Sydney and Auckland.

> Matthew.
> http://www.rleague.com

> -----------

 
 
 

Cronulla running scared

Post by Dan t » Sat, 18 Jul 1998 04:00:00

David,
If Melbourne acheive similar criteria results to
say..Balmain(Crowds,sponsership..etc).Who do they(NRL) throw out??.It HAS to
be someone to acheive the 14 teams in 2000.It all a bit confusing at the
moment,but it looks like mergers will happen sooner than later,so no one
gets thrown out!

Quote:



>>:Also, it is all agreed that Adelaide and Gold Coast are the two regional
>>:teams in danger,
><snip>

>>And I'd even toss Melbourne in as under threat....apart from their
on-field
>>success, they haven't exactly set the world on fire.

>Could some please explain to this UK RL fan why any regional teams are
under
>threat at all?

>I would have thought they would be guaranteed entry into a "national"
>competition and if they had any financial or other problems that they would
be
>bailed out to keep the game truly national.

>As to Melbourne its a bit soon, is it not, to be considering omitting them
for
>off field failures when they have only been in existence such a short time.
>Give em a chance.

>UK RL administration is the pits but if Australia start cutting teams
outside
>NSW they will have IMO sunk to the UK level.

>Dave

>--
>Wigan RLFC - getting back to being Simply the best -

>(remove the letter t from clarat if replying via email)

 
 
 

Cronulla running scared

Post by WiganRLf » Sat, 18 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>If Melbourne acheive similar criteria results to
>say..Balmain(Crowds,sponsership..etc).Who do they(NRL) throw out??.

Balmain.  I still can't believe they let Perth go either.

Quote:
>It HAS to
>be someone to acheive the 14 teams in 2000.It all a bit confusing at the
>moment,but it looks like mergers will happen sooner than later,so no one
>gets thrown out!

Well I hope so because if they do throw anyone out and its one  or more of the
non NSW teams IMO that is a real backward step.

Dave
--
Wigan RLFC - getting back to being Simply the best -

(remove the letter t from clarat if replying via email)

 
 
 

Cronulla running scared

Post by Mike Freedma » Sun, 19 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Quote:


(Greg

>>:Also, it is all agreed that Adelaide and Gold Coast are the two
regional
>>:teams in danger,
><snip>

>>And I'd even toss Melbourne in as under threat....apart from their
on-field
>>success, they haven't exactly set the world on fire.

>Could some please explain to this UK RL fan why any regional teams are
under
>threat at all?

>I would have thought they would be guaranteed entry into a "national"
>competition and if they had any financial or other problems that they
would be
>bailed out to keep the game truly national.

I agree totally. It is in the interests of the NRL to keep teams outside
the NRL solvent, while at the same time encouraging mergers from inner
Sydney clubs. For some reason, Sydney clubs seem to think they are (or
should be) on equal footing with non-Sydney clubs w.r.t keeping a team
in the premiership, but (at least while so many Sydney clubs stay in the
competition) this is patently not the case. Sydney is important, but
what is more important is that we allow the game to become as strong as
possible in as many places as possible.

I therefore do not see an argument that any regional teams should be
omitted from the competition at all. As it stands, it is likely that at
least one will go - and my money is on the Gold Coast. Adelaide has also
been touted as a casualty, but I can't believe the NRL would repeat the
fiasco of Perth and chuck the Rams out after only a couple of years.
Perhaps a better scenario would be to relocate the Coast (the team, not
he location ;-) to Brisbane, and allow them to compete against the
Broncos.

The problem of regional teams going under may soon right itself,
however. Because of the lucky coincidence that most regional teams
played under the SL banner, they are AFAIK still waiting for a
multimillion dollar News Limited payout. This will certainly put them
out of the red and into the black, and gives them a distinct advantage
over the old ARL clubs. This is probably another reason why the Coast
will be forced out - as an old ARL club - they will simply not be
getting that money.

Quote:
>As to Melbourne its a bit soon, is it not, to be considering omitting
them for
>off field failures when they have only been in existence such a short
time.
>Give em a chance.

>UK RL administration is the pits but if Australia start cutting teams
outside
>NSW they will have IMO sunk to the UK level.

They would effectively be denying fans from those areas the chance to
see top quality rugby league, while at the same time allowing the people
of  Sydney to have several games of league to choose from every weekend,
most of which will continue to be effectively ignored. Let's not destroy
Sydney, but let's also bear in mind the importance of getting league to
people who want to see it, and to do that special consideration must be
paid to clubs outside Sydney.

Sorry that this has turned into a bit of a rant, but it had its genesis
in one paragraph in this week's RLW, in a story written by Darren
Hadland, when he asks "why do we need new franchises popping up all over
the place? Why do we need a truly national game? ... Every answer is
from a business perspective, not a sporting one".  I have another answer
for you, Darren - we need franchises from other areas because this game
is so good, there is a m***duty to allow everyone who wants to see it,
and have a team to support to do so. To allow the argument that Sydney
should keep all its teams at the expense of people outside Sydney is
selfishness at its worst.


 
 
 

Cronulla running scared

Post by Merimbula Amcal Chemis » Sun, 19 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Quote:


> <snipt - Great stuff>

> >Sorry that this has turned into a bit of a rant, but it had its genesis
> >in one paragraph in this week's RLW, in a story written by Darren
> >Hadland, when he asks "why do we need new franchises popping up all over
> >the place? Why do we need a truly national game? ... Every answer is
> >from a business perspective, not a sporting one".  I have another answer
> >for you, Darren - we need franchises from other areas because this game
> >is so good, there is a m***duty to allow everyone who wants to see it,
> >and have a team to support to do so. To allow the argument that Sydney
> >should keep all its teams at the expense of people outside Sydney is
> >selfishness at its worst.

> And now you know why I have not read RLW for years.  When you consider
> that it is owned by the same person who owns Channel Nine, and place
> that article (as you reported it) in contest with Nine's current match
> broadcast policy, you begin to see the picture, no?

> Sydney, Sydney, Sydney!  They are not interested in the Rugby League
> as such, and their present conduct simply proves what has been obvious
> to some of us for many years.  The NRL would be better off paying the
> ABC to broadcast the FTA matches rather than allowing Nine (or any
> other commercial channel anywhere near the game.

> Mike

Agreed. If Rugby League is made simply ' a *** for Sydneysiders' that's
what it will always be.

It has the potential to be very much more.

The AFL has been through all this in it's transition and their results
show that  what some in Melbourne might have lost is more than made up
by what the game has gained Nationally.

Let's get on with it!!!(properly of course)

Keep Possession
RobSm

 
 
 

Cronulla running scared

Post by bronc.. » Mon, 20 Jul 1998 04:00:00



Quote:


> :Also, it is all agreed that Adelaide and Gold Coast are the two regional
> :teams in danger, if they do deals with Sydney clubs, they get an
> :automatic 5-year licence and then that will place some pressure on North
> :Sydney and Auckland.

> w.r.t. mergers, no-one is going to be running to the Gold Coast...there's
> nothing they've got to offer. Adelaide is moderately more attractive, but
> you've still got the problem of moving to a whole new state, which is close
> enough to death for many (I reckon it beats death by a mile actually).

> And I'd even toss Melbourne in as under threat....apart from their on-field
> success, they haven't exactly set the world on fire.

Actually, Melbourne's merchandise sales alone shows they have potential.  And
to get 15000 to watch them play Manly, which is a good effort! :)

Quote:

> Greg
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Greg Pankhurst                   NQ Cowboys Supporters Club of Sydney

> _____________________________________________________________________
>                 Go the Cowboys - NRL Champions in 98
> _____________________________________________________________________

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum
 
 
 

Cronulla running scared

Post by Marnie Davids » Mon, 20 Jul 1998 04:00:00


Quote:
>And to think many of these Sydney clubs sold their souls because they
>thought it would ensure their long term survival.

As did Newtown, I'm sure, but you rarely hear it brought up as a major
disaster to RL that they were cut (unless you're talking to a Newtown
fan ;-) ).  Still, I sympathise with the fans - I would feel pretty
narky if the Knights were going to get the shove.

Regards,
Marnie Davidson
Newcastle, NSW

 
 
 

Cronulla running scared

Post by Dion William » Tue, 21 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> I therefore do not see an argument that any regional teams should be
> omitted from the competition at all. As it stands, it is likely that at
> least one will go - and my money is on the Gold Coast. Adelaide has also
> been touted as a casualty, but I can't believe the NRL would repeat the
> fiasco of Perth and chuck the Rams out after only a couple of years.
> Perhaps a better scenario would be to relocate the Coast (the team, not
> he location ;-) to Brisbane, and allow them to compete against the
> Broncos.

If Sydney teams are going to be rationalised the NRL is going to have to
accept a number of concessions in return. Not all the game's problems
lie in Sydney. Persuading the Broncos to give up their monopoly on
Brisbane might be one of those concessions.

Quote:
> Let's not destroy
> Sydney, but let's also bear in mind the importance of getting league to
> people who want to see it, and to do that special consideration must be
> paid to clubs outside Sydney.

<snip>

Quote:
> To allow the argument that Sydney
> should keep all its teams at the expense of people outside Sydney is
> selfishness at its worst.

The central issue as I see it is to separate the Sydney competition from
the national one. There needs to be a clear delineation between the two.
The success of the national comp depends heavily on its support in
Sydney. The main reason Sydney people are not supporting it now in the
numbers they used to is that from their point of view, the rest of the
competition is encroaching on the local comp they've followed since time
immemorial. The support for individual Sydney teams is not good enough
now to warrant stand-alone status for any of them. The problem I have
with the current merger proposals is that firstly none of them are
genuine partnerships, and secondly they seem destined to be contentious
from the fans' point of view without offering real guarantees of
financial or on-field success. I still think relegating all the Sydney
clubs to a state league, represented by 1 or 2 representative teams in
the top NRL comp, in which each Sydney club has a financial stake, is a
good structure. Sydney people may all be passionate about their
individual teams, but all (or most) of them are behind NSW in State of
Origin. The same is possible for a combined Sydney team playing other
national teams like Brisbane and Melbourne. The current pairing
proposals are neither far enough removed from the divisions of club
football nor close enough to a genuine representative side IMO. Sydney's
RL support is based on the energy created between fierce local rivals.
Transplanting this to a lower level comp of Sydney and for Sydney and
starting anew in the NRL, rather than trying to keep it alive in a
competition that has the wider picture in focus, does RL a better
service I think.

Again a bit of a rant, but it's vital the right decisions, whatever they
may be, are made now. It's RL's last roll of the dice.


 
 
 

Cronulla running scared

Post by Sand » Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00:00

I find the idea of Penrith merging with anyone ridiculous. Penrith has the
biggest coverage area and the biggest junior league in the world. Their
leagues club is a monolith, and the club's financial backing is massive.

People are suggesting Penrith should merge with Parramatta. Wouldn't that be
great, you'd need to combine the rest of the Sydney clubs together to match
their resources. Talk about Brisbane having a monopoly, if you take a
broader view of the future, it's not hard to hear the echoes of the media
screaming about how unfair that situation is, and 'how could the league have
allowed such a thing to happen'.

Wests, Parramatta and Penrith are not the problem, the problem is the older
inner city clubs. There are too many of them covering an area that was once
residential but is no more.

If there must be talk of mergers, let's focus the discussions around the
clubs that need to deal with the issue, not those who contribute already to
the decentralisation of the game.

Sando

Quote:

>Hello,

>I don't know how many of you get the Daily Telegrpah-Mirror.

>AAP, Sportswatch has a piece on the Cronulla move.
>http://www.sportswatch.com.au/sm-html/spo_rgl.html

><start>
>>And the Sydney Morning Herald reports South Sydney and Penrith have held
>meetings in which a merger between the two clubs was discussed.

>AAP RTV ws/sm
>AAP, 17/07/98 04:22 AEST
><end>

>If Wests and Penrith happen to do a deal and then Parramatta and
>Balmain, I know as a Bulldog fan I be very nervous.

>I'm hoping Wests and Penrith do not do a deal in mergers, same I guess
>applies to Cronulla in they don't want to see a stronger southern
>franchise with them missing out.

 
 
 

Cronulla running scared

Post by aw199 » Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> good structure. Sydney people may all be passionate about their
> individual teams, but all (or most) of them are behind NSW in State of
> Origin. The same is possible for a combined Sydney team playing other
> national teams like Brisbane and Melbourne. The current pairing
> proposals are neither far enough removed from the divisions of club
> football nor close enough to a genuine representative side IMO. Sydney's
> RL support is based on the energy created between fierce local rivals.
> Transplanting this to a lower level comp of Sydney and for Sydney and
> starting anew in the NRL, rather than trying to keep it alive in a
> competition that has the wider picture in focus, does RL a better
> service I think.

I agree wholeheartedly. A new 10 team comp, starting afresh would have
been the better way to go, but the NRL/ARL/SL did not have the guts to
do it.

2 Teams in Sydney max as the support is just not there for any more;
Sydney East
Sydney West
Nth Qld
Brisbane
Newcastle
Central Coast
Wollongong
Canberra
Melbourne
Adelaide
Perth
Auckland
Christchurch
Wellington or Port Moresby.

Regards Chris (Go Saints Go!)

 
 
 

Cronulla running scared

Post by andrew hal » Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Quote:



> :Also, it is all agreed that Adelaide and Gold Coast are the two regional
> :teams in danger, if they do deals with Sydney clubs, they get an
> :automatic 5-year licence and then that will place some pressure on North
> :Sydney and Auckland.

> w.r.t. mergers, no-one is going to be running to the Gold Coast...there's
> nothing they've got to offer. Adelaide is moderately more attractive, but
> you've still got the problem of moving to a whole new state, which is close
> enough to death for many (I reckon it beats death by a mile actually).

But I don't think that such a merger would involve a high degree of
interstate migration.  Yes I will admit some, but the bulk of the club
will remain as and where it is now.  After all the juniors up to NSW cup
teams/support staff/volunteers/etc will still be based where they always
have been it is only the senior squad/etc that will have to move.  There
will also be some movement in the oposite direction as aspiring local
juniors will now have a club structure to be directed into (we already
ahve a degree of movement between ourselves and Wests up in Brisbane).
I wouldn't expect that all movement of junior players would be from west
to east but it be the bulk of the flow.
This cross polonation of players is what is needed if RL is to become a
national sport at more than just the elite level.  Different
regions/clubs working together to create a healthy
national/international structure for the sport to grow and for players
to develop.

Andrew
Go the Rams/?

 
 
 

Cronulla running scared

Post by Mike Freedma » Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>If Sydney teams are going to be rationalised the NRL is going to have
to
>accept a number of concessions in return. Not all the game's problems
>lie in Sydney. Persuading the Broncos to give up their monopoly on
>Brisbane might be one of those concessions.

I don't see why the NRL should have to accept concessions. They run the
comp - if they tell a Sydney club to leave, then that is what happens.
And from the merger talks that currently seem to be happening, Sydney
clubs appear to be accepting that this is the legal position. I can't
recall George Piggins threatening legal action for the past few weeks.
The bluff seems to have been called.

Quote:
>The central issue as I see it is to separate the Sydney competition
from
>the national one. There needs to be a clear delineation between the
two.
>The success of the national comp depends heavily on its support in
>Sydney. The main reason Sydney people are not supporting it now in the
>numbers they used to is that from their point of view, the rest of the
>competition is encroaching on the local comp they've followed since
time
>immemorial. The support for individual Sydney teams is not good enough
>now to warrant stand-alone status for any of them.

This makes sense, and demonstrates the folly of starting a national comp
while including so many teams from one area, even if that area does
house 4 million people.

 The problem I have

Quote:
>with the current merger proposals is that firstly none of them are
>genuine partnerships, and secondly they seem destined to be contentious
>from the fans' point of view without offering real guarantees of
>financial or on-field success.

Requiring the mergers to be genuine partnerships ignores financial
reality. The clubs are not all in the same financial position.  There
seems to be conflicting reports on this group, but hypothetically if
Illawarra are practically bankrupt, and St George are in a comparatively
strong position financially, it seems naive to expect St George to
accept Illawarra as a full partner.

 I still think relegating all the Sydney

Quote:
>clubs to a state league, represented by 1 or 2 representative teams in
>the top NRL comp, in which each Sydney club has a financial stake, is a
>good structure. Sydney people may all be passionate about their
>individual teams, but all (or most) of them are behind NSW in State of
>Origin. The same is possible for a combined Sydney team playing other
>national teams like Brisbane and Melbourne. The current pairing
>proposals are neither far enough removed from the divisions of club
>football nor close enough to a genuine representative side IMO.
Sydney's
>RL support is based on the energy created between fierce local rivals.
>Transplanting this to a lower level comp of Sydney and for Sydney and
>starting anew in the NRL, rather than trying to keep it alive in a
>competition that has the wider picture in focus, does RL a better
>service I think.

I think that such a proposal has real merit, and, IIRC, is similar to
the one that was first proposed by SL. I would allow four franchises in
Sydney - one for each point of the compass.  Each club should then be
offered a share of each franchise appropriate to its geographical
location, and be allowed to compete in it's current form in the state
cup.  I'm not sure all the shares should be equal however - it seems
unfair, and defies logic, to limit rich and powerful clubs by pairing it
with a small, weak club.

Of course, this will never happen because it is much higher risk, would
require the NRL to grow some balls, and start telling Sydney clubs what
to do, rather than providing "incentives" .

Quote:
>Again a bit of a rant, but it's vital the right decisions, whatever
they
>may be, are made now. It's RL's last roll of the dice.

God help us.