My Descent Into Madness

[Rockin Ronny]

I cant wait for Ronny to go postal and blow up Brookvale.

How would you know the difference?

 

[Rockin Ronny]

Exactly. Norths were broke before the Super League war, Manly, Easts and Newcastle were not. After it, they were all broke. Norths did nothing more than look on from the sidelines while Athurson, Politis and co funded the fight and entered the ring. Then after it was all done they felt they had more right than anyone else to stay alive.

how old are you, Firefly? 12.

You must be swallowing all of Peter Peters' bullshit at once.

 

[oval]

Stop trying to make manly look chivalrous. They were a whore club backed by the greatest whore, KPacker.

I love a good whore club

 

[firechild]

how old are you, Firefly? 12.

You must be swallowing all of Peter Peters' bullshit at once.

Substantially older than that and I haven't read any of Peters' articles for years.

 

[Jason Maher]

If it wasn't for Easts, Manly and Newcastle, SL would have won. Norths would still have been f**ked.

Superjoke did win. They got their hand firmly in the NRL pie, and the pay tv rights for nix, which is what it was all about from the beginning for them.

 

[Nice Beaver]

Firefly

Stop rewriting history.
Manly have never ever done anything but to suit themselves. Their biggest issue with Super League was the fact that Arko and Bozo wouldn't be able to run the game to suit Manly.

The only club that took a pro-active step to ensure their future was the Bears - by relocating to Gosford having instigated (and helped funding) the building of the stadium.

Optus spent the dough in a PayTV war with foxtel. Manly had no money to spend at any time. Bozo, Arko and KPacker were good mates - what a trio - which is why channel 9 got the FTA rights for nothing.

Remember - when Manly tried to buy premierships for decades, it was Packer's money that did it. When Bozo went to Easts, Packer's money followed.

Stop trying to make manly look chivalrous. They were a whore club backed by the greatest whore, KPacker.

Now whose rewriting history f*ck knuckle?? hahaha Manly only stayed with the ARL becuase they couldn't run Super League.

Now Wonny, we all know you're a bitter, cranky, turd of a human but please don't shoot down other people's posts as "buying propoganda blah blah blah" when you go making stupid personal opinions like they're fact.

Get back to pruning the weeds around the caravan. There's a good nutjob.

The money I would have paid to see you when Manly held the trophy up AGAIN in October.......:lol::lol::lol:

 

[^_^]

Didnt Manly have to pay the NSB players when the JV occured due to the fact the Bears were soo broke they couldnt pay their own players hahahahahaha what a bunch of merkins those Eagles are :lol:

 

[betcats]

How would you know the difference?

haha you should wait and see if they get their big upgrade.

 

[Patorick]

Didnt Manly have to pay the NSB players when the JV occured due to the fact the Bears were soo broke they couldnt pay their own players hahahahahaha what a bunch of merkins those Eagles are :lol:

Ronny has very selective memory.

 

[Rockin Ronny]

Ronny has very selective memory.

Check iy out, dipstick.
North Sydney Leagues put $10 million into the JV. The NRL put $7 million in. Manly contributed nothing (you didn't have any dough) - but got everything.

Look, you guys should celebrate that the big rort helped you survive. But don;t try and rewrite what happened as if you were the good guys. youiw ere broke - but you had Arko.

Google the "$1 million Manly cheque" farce in 1999. It was so amateur - but it worked for you.

When I see the Hasler fisaco, obviously Manly is still as amateur as ever. But, be careful now because Arko doesn't run the league any more.

 

[firechild]

Yep, Manly are amateurs yet still won 2 permierships in the last 4 years. Norths are has beens with no NRL side and 2 premierships in nearly 100 years. I know which club I'd rather be supporting.

 

[Rockin Ronny]

Let's revisit News Limited's "criteria" approach from 1999 and bring it forward to 2011/2012. Everyone knows it was a crock back then - set up to protect superleague clubs (and several others) - but imagine if there was a new "criteria" review to determine which clubs should in the NRL (including expansion prospects) in 2013:

The CRITERIA will be:
1. Financial - likely revenue base; strength of private ownership;
2. Homeground - all aspects - capacity, parking, location, amenities;
3. Management/Board - qualifications, experience, competence, track record; stability
4. Crowd/membership base.
5. Junior base.
6. Longevity - the longer a club has been around, the more durable it is and more likely to continue to exist.

The clubs to be judged will be the existing NRL clubs plus genuine expansion prospects - CC Bears, Perth.

 

[Rockin Ronny]

Let's revisit News Limited's "criteria" approach from 1999 and bring it forward to 2011/2012. Everyone knows it was a crock back then - set up to protect superleague clubs (and several others) - but imagine if there was a new "criteria" review to determine which clubs should in the NRL (including expansion prospects) in 2013:

The CRITERIA will be:
1. Financial - likely revenue base; strength of private ownership;
2. Homeground - all aspects - capacity, parking, location, amenities;
3. Management/Board - qualifications, experience, competence, track record; stability
4. Crowd/membership base.
5. Junior base.
6. Longevity - the longer a club has been around, the more durable it is and more likely to continue to exist.

The clubs to be judged will be the existing NRL clubs plus genuine expansion prospects - CC Bears, Perth.

OK - I'll get the ball rolling. I'll pck up a club at random. Hmmm, let's see - Manly!

CRITERIA
1. Financial - minimal revenue streams propped up by private wners, 1 of whom has left after a dispute with teh other embroiled in in-club fighting. Peter peters' involvement is a significant negative - 1/10;
2. Homeground - absolute dump, embarrassing for the game - 0/10;
3. Management/Board - most unstable, unpredictable, unruly board in the game . Inclusion of Peter Peters on board will (remarkably) worsen the situation. 0/10
4. Crowd/membership base. Lucky to average only 13,00 per game even in a premiership year. Disgrace. Quality of fans - very low to neanderthal at best - 3/10
5. Junior base. Minimal despite attempts to pillage north shore juniors. 3/10
6. Longevity - only around for 50 years or so - a pittance compared to establishment clubs. 2/10

Overall score for Manly: 9/60.
Result: should be excluded from NRL immediately and all records expunged.

 

[Rockin Ronny]

Inclusion of Peter Peters on the Manly board will see a further 5 points deducted.

 

[Silent Knight]

Cool story bro. Please tell me more.

 

[firechild]

Lets try this seriously.

1. Financial - 4/10
While there's not much money in the coffers, the club is financially backed by private owners who have demonstrated that they are willing to dig into their own pocket to fund the club.
2. Home ground - 3/10
Besides being a ground that home fans love, there's not a lot to like about it. However with future development plans on the table there is plenty of potential for improvement.
3. Management - 6/10
No worse than most current boards (just look at Parra) and appear to have made some tough decisions for the long term benefit of the club.
4. Crowd/membership - 6/10
Below average but not the worst. 2012 membership numbers are currently double what they were the same time last year. Some near capacity crowds in 2011 were offset by some monday night games in torrential rain early in the season.
5. Juniors - 8/10
With a large unflux in 2011 of former Toyota cup players as well as other local juniors (Watmough, King, Mauro) Manly have shown plenty despite a small junior catchment.
6. Longevity - 8/10
64 years, longer than most current clubs and only younger than Souths, Easts and Canterbury as clubs in their current form.

Comes to 35 by my calculations.

 

[dogslife]

 

[Slackboy72]

Only 13 more weeks to go...

 

[eozsmiles]

If it wasn't for Easts, Manly and Newcastle, SL would have won. Norths would still have been f**ked.

The ARL spent more money on Newcastle than anywhere else. They made out like bandits.

 

[eozsmiles]

OK - I'll get the ball rolling. I'll pck up a club at random. Hmmm, let's see - Manly!

CRITERIA
1. Financial - minimal revenue streams propped up by private wners, 1 of whom has left after a dispute with teh other embroiled in in-club fighting. Peter peters' involvement is a significant negative - 1/10;
2. Homeground - absolute dump, embarrassing for the game - 0/10;
3. Management/Board - most unstable, unpredictable, unruly board in the game . Inclusion of Peter Peters on board will (remarkably) worsen the situation. 0/10
4. Crowd/membership base. Lucky to average only 13,00 per game even in a premiership year. Disgrace. Quality of fans - very low to neanderthal at best - 3/10
5. Junior base. Minimal despite attempts to pillage north shore juniors. 3/10
6. Longevity - only around for 50 years or so - a pittance compared to establishment clubs. 2/10

Overall score for Manly: 9/60.
Result: should be excluded from NRL immediately and all records expunged.

Manly did have 3 local juniors in State Of Origin in 2011 and the club captain is a local junior. 3/10 sounds a bit low. Most people equate keeping your best juniors with having money. So Manly should get more than 1/10 since they have kept there best juniors in recent times. And unless they want to hand out 8 or more 0/10 scores, then Manly's 50 years will get them more than 2/10.

This assessment of Manly, although pretty funny, sounds like something Andrew Demetriou would say. It's like an AFL advert.