Cronulla running scared

Cronulla running scared

Post by r_ed.. » Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00:00



Quote:

> 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.

I don't agree.  After the whole SL war the last thing the game needed was to
be torn apart again before the wounds even had time to mend.  By waiting two
years before dropping teams I believe the NRL has acted wisely, since
***letting before letting the competition settle down (even to a degree)
would cause hasty and ill-advised mergers.  At least now we've got the
situation where teams are negotiating with each other and most are actively
looking to participate in the revised comp.  If the NRL had scrubbed all the
Sydney teams and replaced them with arbitrarily designated 'super' teams, any
loyalty fans had would disappear. At least with voluntary mergers the clubs
have a say & some identity is retained.

(Oh God, I sound like Wade!!!!!)

Quote:
> 2 Teams in Sydney max as the support is just not there for any more;
> Sydney East
> Sydney West

Even at its most extreme, SL looked for 4 teams from Sydney in an ideal comp.
The idea that the strongest RL city in the world can contribute two teams
while NZ could contribute 3 is pretty laughable.  Give it 25 years and it
might be true, but an awful lot would have to change first.

Quote:
> Nth Qld
> Brisbane
> Newcastle
> Central Coast
> Wollongong
> Canberra
> Melbourne
> Adelaide
> Perth
> Auckland
> Christchurch
> Wellington or Port Moresby.

With all due respect, I don't think either a third NZ team or a PNG team is
likely to succeed.  I personally have doubts over the chances of even a
second NZ team any time in the next 10 years.  The Warriors would have to be
a far more pronounced success (a la Brisbane) to convince me that 3 teams
were even possible.

Richard.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://SportToday.org/; Create Your Own Free Member Forum

 
 
 

Cronulla running scared

Post by Marnie Davids » Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00:00

On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:22:18 +1200, "Mike Freedman"

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.

<snip>

Granted that it is generally accepted that the ARL should have taken a
firm hand regarding the cutting of teams way back when, but I can
understand where the NRL have had their hands tied.  After fans
clearly showed their discontent with RL during the war, cutting their
teams out from under them would have only resulted in a further exodus
of supporters, something that both sides of the war were desperate to
stop.  Rather than alienate the fans further, they have allowed them
(and the clubs) to come to terms with the fact that there will be only
14 teams come 2000, and that there is the likely hood that their team
will have some identity, even if it is in the form of a merger.  No
matter the politics or business-like approach to the game, it is still
a sport that will live or die because of the supporters.

Regards,
Marnie Davidson
Newcastle, NSW

 
 
 

Cronulla running scared

Post by Mike Freedma » Thu, 23 Jul 1998 04:00:00


Quote:
>On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:22:18 +1200, "Mike Freedman"

>>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.

>Granted that it is generally accepted that the ARL should have taken a
>firm hand regarding the cutting of teams way back when, but I can
>understand where the NRL have had their hands tied.  After fans
>clearly showed their discontent with RL during the war, cutting their
>teams out from under them would have only resulted in a further exodus
>of supporters, something that both sides of the war were desperate to
>stop.
> Rather than alienate the fans further, they have allowed them
>(and the clubs) to come to terms with the fact that there will be only
>14 teams come 2000, and that there is the likely hood that their team
>will have some identity, even if it is in the form of a merger.  No
>matter the politics or business-like approach to the game, it is still
>a sport that will live or die because of the supporters.

I would agree, but the simple fact still is that the Sydney clubs that
would have been cut are the ones that either have little support, or
what support they have is not showing itself in a tangible way. If the
"correct" clubs are cut, then the exodus of support you refer to would
not occur, simply because it wouldn't exist. And if it does exist, it
doesn't seem to be showing itself, so cutting the club again would make
no difference. What are those fans going to do - continue not to go to
games or buy merchandise?

This may seem arrogant, but from a New Zealand point of view one of the
most disappointing things this year was watching fans of Sydney clubs,
and bear in mind that this is a city of 4 million, continue not to go to
games even though they knew their club was under threat.  Often this is
because of changing demographics, but if this is the case then it seems
even more justifiable to get rid of that team, at least in its current
form. Personally, I wouldn't even worry about encouraging clubs to
merge - I would simply release the criteria, and threaten to cut the
bottom six clubs unless they started getting their act together, and
either merge or relocate. Forget this $2 million dollar incentive - if
survival in the elite comp isn't enough of an incentive, then perhaps
they do not deserve to be there.

Let's not forget that noone is suggesting that we get rid of all Sydney
teams. The maximum figure still seems to be six clubs.  Therefore, even
if a team from Sydney goes, fans of that club still have a number of
teams to choose from.  What is the big deal with supporting another
club? Honestly, the way some people on this ng carry on you would think
the club they support is a member of the family.  I support the
Warriors, and if they were cut I'd be annoyed, especially because it
would seriously hurt the game in this country, but I'd get over it and I
wouldn't turn my back on the game. I'd simply support someone else, even
though that team would be from Australia. I'm sure other Kiwis would as
well, and if we can do that, support a team from another country, then
surely Sydney fans can be expected to support a team from another part
of the city. It's just a game, after all, isn't it?



 
 
 

Cronulla running scared

Post by John Buckingha » Thu, 23 Jul 1998 04:00:00

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. 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

I thought that the NRL's original idea was to have each existing club
represented in a new State comp with combined teams playing in an elite NRL
comp. For example with the current Saints/Steelers merger there would still
be Saints side playing other local sides and still be a Steelers side in the
same comp. But a combined "super team" made up of the best players would
play in the NRL comp.
What's happened to that concept?
John Buckingham.
 
 
 

Cronulla running scared

Post by Dion William » Fri, 24 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> I thought that the NRL's original idea was to have each existing club
> represented in a new State comp with combined teams playing in an elite NRL
> comp. For example with the current Saints/Steelers merger there would still
> be Saints side playing other local sides and still be a Steelers side in the
> same comp. But a combined "super team" made up of the best players would
> play in the NRL comp.
> What's happened to that concept?

That is still the current plan. My point is that the idea of two-team
mergers negates the identity and the potential support of a lot of
weaker clubs, and retains the divisions of club football that are the
root of controversy in the merger debate. I'd rather see only 1-2 Sydney
franchises in the NRL that each have financial and managerial input from
*all* the Sydney clubs, who retain their identities and much of their
focus in a Sydney comp. It's a model that's worked in the AFL with the
West Coast Eagles, and the BRL comp is still a strong junior development
league with the Broncos as the focus in the top level comp.