Ando's 'winning culture' comes to an end

[Simo]

Its not me that needs to get over SL, its the Sharks fans who keep making out they 'won' something in 1997.
_________________

If you can find a quote to suggest otherwise ill apologise, but what exactly has a Sharks fan claimed to have won?

They lost the GF if memory serves me!

As I said, I'm happy to recognise that the Sharks were grand finalists in the unofficial half competition but its hardly something to write home about.

Unoffical to what? The Super League competition was not meant to be part of the Arl competition and you cant mean unofficial because it wasnt sanctioned by the ARL as the ARL had no say - they werent affiliated in '97. (could have been, but thats another story!)

The Super League GF was an Offical Match under the organisation running that competition.

Had 2 teams under ARL contracts played a match and claimed to be called Super League then that would be unofficial. 2 teams playing under there governing body is 'official'

Super League was breakway competition which all but destroyed the game. The NSWRL and ARL were around for much longer and regardless of their shortcomings, the NSWRL and ARL were the the official bodies.

I disagree. The Arl and NSWRL were the offical bodies of the competitions they ran. They did not 'own' Rugby League, they owned the rights to run a competition under there banner.

If not then the ARL and NSWRL competition was also unofficial as it was a breakaway competition which all but destroyed Rugby Union. The NSWRU was around much longer and regardless of their shortcomings, the NSWRU and ARU were the the official bodies.

 

[Southernsaint]

The ARL were the incumbent custodians of the game. Super League came along & tried to take over the day-to-day running of Rugby League.

Therefore, when Super League set up a competition in opposition to the ARL, they were seen as the "break-away" from the establishment.

You could probably draw some parrallels between the ARL/SL "war" & the ACB/WCS Cricket division.

Cheers,
Ben S.

 

[Anonymous]

Its not me that needs to get over SL, its the Sharks fans who keep making out they 'won' something in 1997.
_________________

If you can find a quote to suggest otherwise ill apologise, but what exactly has a Sharks fan claimed to have won?

They lost the GF if memory serves me!

Your memory serves you well. Did the 'commas' on either side the word 'won' mean anything at all or was the sarcasm completely lost on you?

As I said, I'm happy to recognise that the Sharks were grand finalists in the unofficial half competition but its hardly something to write home about.

Unoffical to what? The Super League competition was not meant to be part of the Arl competition and you cant mean unofficial because it wasnt sanctioned by the ARL as the ARL had no say - they werent affiliated in '97. (could have been, but thats another story!)

The Super League GF was an Offical Match under the organisation running that competition.

Had 2 teams under ARL contracts played a match and claimed to be called Super League then that would be unofficial. 2 teams playing under there governing body is 'official'

Sure whatever you say. The SL was a breakaway comp... was it not? There is no longer a Super League competition in Australia... correct?

Super League was breakway competition which all but destroyed the game. The NSWRL and ARL were around for much longer and regardless of their shortcomings, the NSWRL and ARL were the the official bodies.

I disagree. The Arl and NSWRL were the offical bodies of the competitions they ran. They did not 'own' Rugby League, they owned the rights to run a competition under there banner.

Actually, I might need to check this but I recall that the Super League people decided on that name because the name 'Rugby League' wasnt theirs to exploit. I recall there was possible legal ramifications so they went for a new name.

If not then the ARL and NSWRL competition was also unofficial as it was a breakaway competition which all but destroyed Rugby Union. The NSWRU was around much longer and regardless of their shortcomings, the NSWRU and ARU were the the official bodies.

You're kidding me right? The ARU (according to the comparisons you've drawn) is the official body of League? Listen to yourself. :lol:

By 1908, RL and RU were two different games and nowadays, even the casual observer can tell the difference. Unless ofcourse you're from Melbourne. :lol:

But in all seriousness, please dont try and make out that the dispute over broken time payments for players bears any resemblance to the corporate battle over broadcasting rights.

With respect, its too long a bow to draw.

 

[Simo]

Your memory serves you well. Did the 'commas' on either side the word 'won' mean anything at all or was the sarcasm completely lost on you?

:lol: The sarcasm was completely lost on me.
My bad, you win this point!

Sure whatever you say. The SL was a breakaway comp... was it not? There is no longer a Super League competition in Australia... correct?

Yes the Super League was a Breakaway comp. Therefor its competition does not come under the Arl banner and all matches played in the comp are official games for the SUper League competition.

No there is no longer a super league comp. in Australia.

Actually, I might need to check this but I recall that the Super League people decided on that name because the name 'Rugby League' wasnt theirs to exploit. I recall there was possible legal ramifications so they went for a new name.

Dont know 100% either, i assumed they went with the Super League name over Rugby League because it would appear to sound like a superior comp. But i have no idea why John Ribot does alot of things so the name, who knows.

You're kidding me right? The ARU (according to the comparisons you've drawn) is the official body of League? Listen to yourself.

By 1908, RL and RU were two different games and nowadays, even the casual observer can tell the difference. Unless ofcourse you're from Melbourne.

But in all seriousness, please dont try and make out that the dispute over broken time payments for players bears any resemblance to the corporate battle over broadcasting rights.

With respect, its too long a bow to draw.

I agree, to claim Union is the official League body is just plain silly. Im not that stupid (i hope!)

Edit: I was writing a different response to try and explain what i meant. I am even confusing myself and so i agree i was a dumb comparision, and ive found an easier way to explain what i mean!

Which competition do you think involved the best teams in Aus competing for the highest level premiership in the '97 comp?

My answer, is both the Arl and Super League comps.
Therefor it is my opinion that both GF's are counted as equal and one does not cancel the other out.

 

[Anonymous]

Your memory serves you well. Did the 'commas' on either side the word 'won' mean anything at all or was the sarcasm completely lost on you?

:lol: The sarcasm was completely lost on me.
My bad, you win this point!

Sure whatever you say. The SL was a breakaway comp... was it not? There is no longer a Super League competition in Australia... correct?

Yes the Super League was a Breakaway comp. Therefor its competition does not come under the Arl banner and all matches played in the comp are official games for the SUper League competition.

No there is no longer a super league comp. in Australia.

Actually, I might need to check this but I recall that the Super League people decided on that name because the name 'Rugby League' wasnt theirs to exploit. I recall there was possible legal ramifications so they went for a new name.

Dont know 100% either, i assumed they went with the Super League name over Rugby League because it would appear to sound like a superior comp. But i have no idea why John Ribot does alot of things so the name, who knows.

You're kidding me right? The ARU (according to the comparisons you've drawn) is the official body of League? Listen to yourself.

By 1908, RL and RU were two different games and nowadays, even the casual observer can tell the difference. Unless ofcourse you're from Melbourne.

But in all seriousness, please dont try and make out that the dispute over broken time payments for players bears any resemblance to the corporate battle over broadcasting rights.

With respect, its too long a bow to draw.

I agree, to claim Union is the official League body is just plain silly. Im not that stupid (i hope!)

Edit: I was writing a different response to try and explain what i meant. I am even confusing myself and so i agree i was a dumb comparision, and ive found an easier way to explain what i mean!

Which competition do you think involved the best teams in Aus competing for the highest level premiership in the '97 comp?

My answer, is both the Arl and Super League comps.
Therefor it is my opinion that both GF's are counted as equal and one does not cancel the other out.

Well you better tell Tama - he thinks the ARL comp doesnt count. :lol: ;-)
At the end of the day, the books show that there were two grand finals in 1997 although if you look at it, the NSWRL/ARL competition from 1908 is the recognised one that has continued.

The history of premiership was pretty much unquestioned up until the Super League season of 1997. Sure, it had its changes what with it being the 'Sydney Comp' controlled by the NSWRL and then a more national and international comp with ARL taking over the reins... but by-and-large, there was no question as to who was running the game. That is until corporate Super League came along.

However, the historians have catalogued the seasons 1908-2003 to be one set of records... that is, they didnt choose to start it again in 1998 when the NRL was formed from the ashes of the SL/ARL war. Why is that? It would seem to me that this is because the new NRL couldnt do without the past; and failure to recognise the official custodians of the game would be to everyone's detriment.

IMO, it's extraordinary that the Super League season can earn a poste-script of equality in the history of the premiership, while the far simpler notion of a club having its own history continued is met with opposition by the very corporation which seeks to exploit this legacy.

 

[Simo]

Well you better tell Tama - he thinks the ARL comp doesnt count

Well i cant agree with Tama there.

At the end of the day, the books show that there were two grand finals in 1997 although if you look at it, the NSWRL/ARL competition from 1908 is the recognised one that has continued.

The history of premiership was pretty much unquestioned up until the Super League season of 1997. Sure, it had its changes what with it being the 'Sydney Comp' controlled by the NSWRL and then a more national and international comp with ARL taking over the reins... but by-and-large, there was no question as to who was running the game. That is until corporate Super League came along.

However, the historians have catalogued the seasons 1908-2003 to be one set of records... that is, they didnt choose to start it again in 1998 when the NRL was formed from the ashes of the SL/ARL war. Why is that? It would seem to me that this is because the new NRL couldnt do without the past and failure the recognise the official custodians of the game would be to everyone's detriment.

IMO, it's extraordinary that the Super League season can earn a poste-script of equality in the history of the premiership, while the far simpler notion of a club having its own history continued is met with opposition by the very corporation which seeks to exploit this legacy.

That is a very good response. I see very clearly what you mean as when someone says who won the 89 GF, if someone says Canberra they are talking about the NSWRL/ARL competition. So when the same bloke asks who won '97 if you are still talking the ARL comp your answer would be Newcastle as Bris didnt compete in that competition.

As far as the records are concerend there is no need to include the SL as you may aswell include the CRL winner and QLD cup winner etc etc. The records are for the Arl/NSWRL comp.

However the teams that participated in SL should not have there season removed from history. It was a strange time in Leagues history and i think everyone except those to emotionally attached to either side can understand that the SL achievements of the clubs deserve to be recognised. And i think that is why they are there.

Not technically correct as they never competed in the Arl comp but it is the only time 2 fully proffesional comps have run side by side at the highest level using each others players.

Some people here may truely believe that the records shouldnt be there and thats cool, but can i suggest that the majority here dont think so purely because Cronulla made the GF and they may just want any reason to shoot them down?? (The same would go in reverse with Cronulla people saying the Arl comp shouldnt count or was second rate, purely because Saints were involved)

 

[carcharias]

Willow , willow , willow
You'll have to stop acting like a journalist and only quoting certain parts of peoples post's . The problem is people are not as stupid as you may think , they can read.
here's a couple of corkers you've come up with.

Fact is, you guys have nothing to offer. Firstly there's this notion that the Sharks are more consistent than Saints this being backed up by some bizarre idea that a one ring circus grand final somehow equates to four official grand finals

and

The only reason why Sharks fans won't let go of the Super League argument is because it adds a certificate to their hall of smoke and mirrors... that is, 'half grand final runners up 1997'.

and then

So you want to say that my argument is 'weak as piss' and ask to move on... its not that easy.
The only reason you put up that list was to in some way make out that SL was relevant. I still maintained that it was at best, a half baked competition that lasted one year.
Its not me that needs to get over SL, its the Sharks fans who keep making out they 'won' something in 1997

This may all be well and good but it was you who started this whole subject .A thinly disguised attack at cronulla.
It was you who bought up the subject of Super League.
With this comment.

How many grand finals were the Sharks in during the 1990s?
(Super League doesnt count)

So as I said ,get over it mate. My original post was a simple list a premiers from that era and who their affiliation was with.
You didn't get it and then tried to twist it around to make yourself look good.Which didn't wash with anyone.
I didn't notice any of your mates backing you up either come to think of it.
For a supposed moderater one would think you would be interested in writng factual posts regarding your own team ..not starting little cat fights about other clubs and things that happened 6 years ago.

 

[carcharias]

hang on I stand corrected Willow I said you where a moderator when in fact you are a administrater. Unless this is wrong.

 

[Anonymous]

Willow , willow , willow
You'll have to stop acting like a journalist and only quoting certain parts of peoples post's . The problem is people are not as stupid as you may think , they can read.

lol... well I don't want to be seen as acting like a journalist... you're obviously too clever for me.

This may all be well and good but it was you who started this whole subject .A thinly disguised attack at cronulla.

It wasn't thinly disguised.

It was you who bought up the subject of Super League.
With this comment.

How many grand finals were the Sharks in during the 1990s?
(Super League doesnt count)

So what? It was in brackets and put there to stir up the kiddies. :lol:
I have since had a healthy discussion with simo about it. Shame you missed that one... is there some other small point you'd like to bring up? Or have you still not got over it yourself? :lol:

For a supposed moderater one would think you would be interested in writng factual posts regarding your own team ..not starting little cat fights about other clubs and things that happened 6 years ago.

:roll: This old chestnut... I'm a member first and a moderator/admin second...
Moderator (supposed or otherwise) has nothing to do with it. Whenever anyone brings that up in an effort to score debate points, its a sure sign that they're losing the argument - and that they have forgotten the very reason why we have discussion boards.
I've never understood why moderators have to suddenly act in a certain way to suit the childish and toffnose sensibilities of others.
If you'd like to dictate how people should conduct their discussions then I'll afraid you're in for a lot of dissappointments.

Believe me, when I put on the mod hat, you'll know - I never get the two mixed up, and nor should you.

Now, reagrding the point (I think) you were trying to make. If I want to start a 'cat fight' as you put it, then I will. You'll find that I personally choose not to bait in other team forums... its easy enough to throw the hook out in this Saints section. lol
If you want to come into here and see nice agreeable posts, then perhaps its time you started averting your eyes... its going to be a long season for anyone who gets as easily stirred up as you do.

 

[Mark Riddels Dog]

4 words sum up our inferiority complexed neighbours......"SHAFTED"......"JOHNNY LANG".........."PENRITH".......
"PREMIERS"................... :lol: :lol: :lol: ..has kept me chuckling all of the Off-season.