25th anniversary of expansion

[Knightmare]

Get used to it. The Gold Coast have a team in the 2007 competition. The Central Coast do not.

So you're saying that if something happened that you thought was unfair, rather than stating your case you would just stand by and get used to it? If for some reason the NRL kicked St George Illawarra out of the comp so that the Central Coast could enter the comp would you do your best to overturn the decision or "get used to it"?

 

[Misty Bee]

Green Machine, you must be the only person in the Western World who hadn't heard of Brisbane's exclusivity clause - a deal struck with News Ltd before reunification talks were completed.

News wanted a 12 team comp - and the ARL wanted it's 20 team comp. Compromise: 20 teams in 1998, whittled down to 14 by 2000. By then, the Crushers had already died.

The ARL couldn't 'force' a merger. Besides, it was the NRL partnership that controlled that. The Gold Coast was gone, as a token ARL death to balance the News Ltd kill off of Perth, Adelaide and Hunter (although they got Melbourne). The Coast was in the firing line because of the exclusivity clause that Brisbane had.

The proposed East Coast Tigers was blocked because of this. But it was a definite proposal - they were going to play out of Suncorp. Besides, Balmain were fighting for their lives, and entertained merger discussions with Manly, Easts and Parra as well. balmain would have moved anywhere to survive. Souths too - they proposed a merger with Adelaide at one stage - again knocked on the head. News wanted Souths out. Norths went bust. Wests were about to fold, but accepted a JV with Balmain (and reaped the rewardsin October this year). Illawarra merged with Saints. The NRL forced Norths into a meger with manly so the new stadium at Gosford could be used. Brisbane, Auckland, Melbourne and Newcastle were guaranteed a 5 year contract, as were the Wests Tigers and the Dragons.

 

[Green Machine]

Green Machine, you must be the only person in the Western World who hadn't heard of Brisbane's exclusivity clause - a deal struck with News Ltd before reunification talks were completed.

My recollection of this was the Brisbane got an agreement for exclusive use of Brisbane only, not South East Queensland, Misty.

News wanted a 12 team comp - and the ARL wanted it's 20 team comp. Compromise: 20 teams in 1998, whittled down to 14 by 2000. By then, the Crushers had already died.

Misty, Neil Whitticker who was negotiation on behalf of the ARL during 1997, wanted 16 teams and News Ltd wanted 12. They compromised at 14. The ARL never came to the table with a 20 team proposal. During the 1998 season, Illawarra Leagues Club suffered fire damage and BHP told the Steelers that they would no longer sponsor them. Illawarra approached St George about a Joint Venture for the 1999 season. I can remember the NRL Chairman for the 1999 season, Michael Hill tried to stall the mergers and kept telling clubs not to merge and he had an idea. I think that idea that was released prior to Balmain and Wests forming a joint venture was for Western Suburbs Magpies to be cut. The Competition would be a 16 team competition played over 32 rounds, plus a finals series. After that merger, that left 15 to go into 14.

The ARL couldn't 'force' a merger.

Misty, the reason the Crushers and the Chargers never merged was because the Chargers Board was unwilling to except the Crushers losses which totalled $3m. That’s a fact and it is well documented everywhere.

Besides, it was the NRL partnership that controlled that. The Gold Coast was gone, as a token ARL death to balance the News Ltd kill off of Perth, Adelaide and Hunter (although they got Melbourne). The Coast was in the firing line because of the exclusivity clause that Brisbane had.

Say it 10 more times Misty and it will became fact Misty. Perth and the Mariners were wound up at the end of the 1997 season and the players were sent to Melbourne.

The proposed East Coast Tigers was blocked because of this. But it was a definite proposal. .- they were going to play out of Suncorp.

The propsal was bloked because Easts Brisbane was not an NRL Club. The playing games was to be spilt between Lang Park, Gold Coast and Liechardt. Never exclusively Suncorp.

Besides, Balmain were fighting for their lives, and entertained merger discussions with Manly, Easts and Parra as well. balmain would have moved anywhere to survive. Souths too - they proposed a merger with Adelaide at one stage - again knocked on the head. News wanted Souths out. Norths went bust. Wests were about to fold, but accepted a JV with Balmain (and reaped the rewardsin October this year). Illawarra merged with Saints. The NRL forced Norths into a meger with manly so the new stadium at Gosford could be used. Brisbane, Auckland, Melbourne and Newcastle were guaranteed a 5 year contract, as were the Wests Tigers and the Dragons.

The NRL never forced Norths into a merger with Manly. Norths Board put the Bears into receivership for the piddly sum of $6.4m dollars. Isn’t strange that Norths could not carry a debt of $6.4m, for a football club with a turnover of $12m a season, into a new stadium with ready made Rugby League community. Souths chose their own path. Souths chartered out their own future way back when George Piggins came up with the loyalty agreements in 1995. Souths have been in financial trouble since 1970-71 when the Leagues Club closed the doors,

 

[Misty Bee]

No point continuing to discuss anything with a bloke who denies Balmain would ever enter into a merger with the Gold Coast and Brisbane Easts:

You can’t be serious that Balmain ever considered moving out of Sydney?

and then comes up with this

The propsal was bloked because Easts Brisbane was not an NRL Club. The playing games was to be spilt between Lang Park, Gold Coast and Liechardt. Never exclusively Suncorp.

Anyway, as Willow alerted to, the Broncos clause was for SE Queensland.

The rest is becoming nit picking. The ARL never wanted anything but it's 20 team comp when SL broke out. 18 was it's first compromise. Any dialougue between the Crushers and the Chargers doesn't change the facts - a reuinited comp had no place for them. The Crushers were dead at that point, anyway. They died at the end of 1997, while the Coast lived for another season. It was this time the merger talks happened with Balmain and B. Easts.

No players from Perth and Hunter were 'sent' to Melbourne. They were all recruited and contracted. Mainly Kimmorley and Hill out of Canterbury's grasp - courtesy of Peter Moore.

Neither of these points change the fact that the ARL couldn't force a merger on their own. The ARL on it's own didn't control the criteria, the cash or the direction of the comp. The only thing the ARL had control over was the Gold Coast board. Which closed the club in a deal struck with News Ltd, who did likewise with Perth and Adelaide, because News was the sole funder of these clubs. News cancelled the payments.

 

[Green Machine]

Green Machine, you must be the only person in the Western World who hadn't heard of Brisbane's exclusivity clause - a deal struck with News Ltd before reunification talks were completed.

Misty,
In 1997, Ian Frickberg (on behalf of Super League) and Neil Whitticker (on behalf of the ARL) negotiated a proposal for the unification of Super League and ARL aligned clubs, to form a 14 team competition starting in 2000. The ARL aligned clubs voted and accepted this proposal in late 1997, with Balmain and South Sydney the only clubs voting against the proposal. If a deal was struck before reunification talks were completed (during 1997) for the Broncos to have an exclusivity clause for the whole of South East Queensland, starting in 2000, could you please answer the following:


Why did the News Ltd controlled Mariners approach the Gold Coast Chargers, after the 1997 Peace Settlement, about forming a joint venture, if the both parties already knew that having another side in South East Queensland was against the terms of 1997 Peace Settlement?

Why did the Gold Coast Chargers compete in the 1998 NRL Premiership if this against the terms of 1997 Peace Settlement?

Why did East Brisbane approach Balmain and the Gold Coast Chargers in regards to forming a joint venture to play games at Suncorp Stadium, Carrara Stadium and Leichhardt Oval, if this against the terms of 1997 Peace Settlement?

 

[Razor]

Why did the Gold Coast Chargers compete in the 1998 NRL Premiership if this against the terms of 1997 Peace Settlement?

Because the terms of the deal was they had the exclusive arrangment from 2001(or 2000; I'm not sure) for 5 years.

Why did East Brisbane approach Balmain and the Gold Coast Chargers in regards to forming a joint venture to play games at Suncorp Stadium, Carrara Stadium and Leichhardt Oval, if this against the terms of 1997 Peace Settlement?

And if you remember both the Tigers and Chargers accepted the proposal. But the NRL rejected it saying it wasn't in the best interests of the game.

 

[Green Machine]

Because the terms of the deal was they had the exclusive arrangment from 2001(or 2000; I'm not sure) for 5 years.

That is what I thought as well Razer. The exclusivity clause did not come out until after the start of the 2000 season. So, it was not until the Chargers were well and truly gone, did the clause go in. If it was in vogue in 1997, the Mariners/Chargers merger would have been a bit hard to do,

And if you remember both the Tigers and Chargers accepted the proposal. But the NRL rejected it saying it wasn't in the best interests of the game.

I don’t remember the proposal being accepted by the Balmain Board. I don’t even remember the proposal, as with the Parramatta merger being put to the Balmain members for their consent,