Yeah cause you've made your stance clear on here a million times: basically expansion is 'great', hell the sport is 'great', but the Sharks come first, if anything effects the Sharks in a negative way then it shouldn't happen, even if it'd be a net positive for the sport and the competition as a whole.
This coming from someone who's team will not be affected one bit.Ivory tower.
Correction expansion to be done but not Crusher style.
The sport is indeed great, you must have little time for it then.
The Shark's come first when I follow them, just like the Raiders come first in your eyes,as it does any supporter of a team.Scoop that's what supporters do.
You're smoking the funny stuff, the Sharks have had more negative situations and headlines, than I've had sleeps.
If the Sharks get flicked so be it,doesn''t mean I'd continue to follow the relocated club .I''d continue to follow International rugby league, which I do now.
Net positive for the sport ,if losing a supporter base and a whiteanting of a strong junior rl area is a positive,then I'll need some convincing.
Though obviously you wouldn't articulate it this way your opinion is pretty simple, the NRL is just the NSWRL (effectively a Sydney suburban comp) under another name, the clubs from outside of Sydney can take part but only if they are a 100% net positive to the Sydney clubs or they don't effect the Sydney clubs in any significant way.
For a start there are 5 out of NSW teams plus throw in Canberra.That means 1/2 are Sydney and one in Newcastle.You may as well say the AFL is a Vic based code,using your analogy.
To meet the standards to achieve what you "prefer" are so insurmountably high (that any new expansion club must be successful in almost ever regard from day dot (especially profitability), they can't effect the operations of your club to any measurable degree (especially when it comes to it's 'share' of the broadcast money, and for some reason crowds), and they must 100% provide for themselves in every regard from day dot except that they get the same grant that all NRL clubs get from the NRL) that it is to effectively support the status quo cause under those standards nothing but the status quo is reasonably possible outside of extremely unusual circumstances. I.e. you support expansion in name only, in reality you support only what is beneficial and/or convenient to you and your club.
Standards!!! Meaning long term viability,fan base ,juniors, sponsorship and financial backing from teh NRL.That's hardly throwing the mission impossible at new franchises.FHS.
Firstly it's not really up to the Commission, but that is an aside and the fact that you think that "the Commission" equals, to quote you- is the problem.
The Commission decides on the structure of the competition, not Greenburger & CO.Who else decides on the final make up?
You don't see the NRL as the National Rugby League or the ARLC as the Australian Rugby League Commission, you see it as yours ( the Sydney club's), your just happy to let other people play with it too as long as it doesn't effect you.
You love making assumptions.I see the NRL as running the competition.The ARLC to oversee the structure,financing.
What they decide ,I have zero control over, that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion.
Coming from someone whose club will not be affected,your smugness is stifling.
Yeah pretty much every RL administration that I can remember has said something similar, then a few months/years later they've propped up a club that's never going to be sustainable in the long term.
We'll have to wait and see, won't we.You'll no doubt be extremely disappointed, if they all perform well.
BTW, the hypocrisy of the fact that you hold this opinion now that you think the Sharks are safe is another part of the problem, shit I'd bet anything that if the Sharks fell over tomorrow your tune would change again...
