Central Coast Bears NRL Bid.

[reanimate]

It's amazing how many people talk about the EPL without knowing anything about it lol.

Prior to News Ltd taking English soccer global with the Premier League in the early 90s, they and their clubs were exactly where the NRL is now. In other words most of their clubs struggled to keep their heads above water and they had stagnated because of a refusal to change in the name of tradition. The only major difference they had was a pro&reg system, which naturally sorted some of the wheat from the chaff.

In other words the difference between their clubs and ours isn't that a bunch of theirs were founded in the 1800s, it's that they have had the capability to get their product under the noises of a global audience of billions of people for 30 years now.

News Ltd tried to partner with the ARL in a similar way to the manner in which they did with the FA, the ARL rejected it and it effectively caused the SL war. But even if they had copied the EPL to the tee, the ARL/NRL still wouldn't have been as big globally, because put simply RL isn't as big globally as soccer is.

So unless you know about a place where billions of fanatical RL fans are hiding, just waiting for ease of access to the NRL, we aren't and never will be the EPL or their clubs.
As such our circumstances necessitate that we do things differently, and the suburban clubs aren't working and haven't for 50 years now.

All of which you are saying, again, has very little to do with the names of the clubs. The EPL had a massive promotional push around the world, but the clubs having names like Tottenham, Arsenal, Chelsea etc did nothing to damage the product’s success. They built on the backs of those established brands, maintained their existing fanbases and made them household names around the world.

Same goes for the AFL, the VFL/AFL had a massive promotional push around Australia, but they maintained the existing club identities and fanbases of clubs like Richmond, Collingwood etc and made them household names nearly Australia-wide.

 

[The Great Dane]

All of which you are saying, again, has very little to do with the names of the clubs. The EPL had a massive promotional push around the world, but the clubs having names like Tottenham, Arsenal, Chelsea etc did nothing to damage the product’s success. They built on the backs of those established brands, maintained their existing fanbases and made them household names around the world.

Those clubs current success is only possible because of their global market, take that away and they are struggling, which is exactly what was happening pre-1992.
In other words, they wouldn't exist as they do now if it wasn't for the advent of the EPL, and if you take that away many of them would have been forced to make changes or risk becoming obsolete or dying.

We don't have the luxury of being able to go global as they did, and picking up a bunch of billionaires and supporters from the other side of the world whom don't give a f**k about local conflicts along the way. So even if we want to we can't do things the way they did them, and that means our clubs will be forced to appeal to people more locally and that will mean making changes the EPL clubs weren't forced to do.

Same goes for the AFL, the VFL/AFL had a massive promotional push around Australia, but they maintained the existing club identities and fanbases of clubs like Richmond, Collingwood etc and made them household names nearly Australia-wide.

Sure Richmond and Collingwood are doing fine, meanwhile the AFL has spent it's whole existence trying to move smaller clubs like North Melbourne and St Kilda out of Melbourne.

Don't get it twisted, despite their success relative to the NRL making it easier to paper over the cracks they are in almost the exact same spot as the NRL when it comes to the amount of clubs in Melbourne, and they'd give their left nut to get at least a couple more of the smaller clubs in Melbourne to relocate.

 

[reanimate]

Those clubs current success is only possible because of their global market, take that away and they are struggling, which is exactly what was happening pre-1992.
In other words, they wouldn't exist as they do now if it wasn't for the advent of the EPL, and if you take that away many of them would have been forced to make changes or risk becoming obsolete or dying.

We don't have the luxury of being able to go global as they did, and picking up a bunch of billionaires and supporters from the other side of the world whom don't give a f**k about local conflicts along the way. So even if we want to we can't do things the way they did them, and that means our clubs will be forced to appeal to people more locally and that will mean making changes the EPL clubs weren't forced to do.

Sure, we can make changes, but as the AFL have shown in the local market, you don’t need to make sweeping changes to existing club brands to achieve good results. Good marketing works wonders, as the AFL have shown.

Sure Richmond and Collingwood are doing fine, meanwhile the AFL has spent it's whole existence trying to move smaller clubs like North Melbourne and St Kilda out of Melbourne.

Don't get it twisted, despite their success relative to the NRL making it easier to paper over the cracks they are in almost the exact same spot as the NRL when it comes to the amount of clubs in Melbourne, and they'd give their left nut to get at least a couple more of the smaller clubs in Melbourne to relocate.

One of the perennial battlers is the nice and broadly named Melbourne Demons. The names of the existing brands isn’t the chief factor in their success or lack there of, as the big Melbourne teams have shown.

 

[The Great Dane]

Sure, we can make changes, but as the AFL have shown in the local market, you don’t need to make sweeping changes to existing club brands to achieve good results. Good marketing works wonders, as the AFL have shown.

One of the perennial battlers is the nice and broadly named Melbourne Demons. The names of the existing brands isn’t the chief factor in their success or lack there of, as the big Melbourne teams have shown.

At this point you are just talking shit in an attempt to rationalise your position post hoc.

The changes the AFL made to get their good results were sweeping; they relocated one club, literally forced another to fold then gave their assets to another out of town club to legitimise them, forced all their clubs out of their traditional suburban grounds into shared stadia, pressured certain clubs into rebranding (there's a reason why it's the Western Bulldogs and not Footscray anymore), forced league wide rebranding multiple times, enforced ticket taxes, etc, etc.
All things you wouldn't accept for Manly, and it still hasn't been enough as they are still constantly pushing for more significant sweeping changes.

Considering the history in of the code, especially in Northern Sydney, the chances that Manly have of significantly growing their fan-base without making major changes to their brand, where they play, how they market themselves and engage with the community, etc, etc, are slim to none (you'd need a loaded angel investor with amazing marketing and business experience). To suggest otherwise is to be in denial of reality.

On the Demons; they are the oldest professional football club (of any code) on the planet. They literally predate the codified rules of Aussie rules football as they were founded by Tom Wills and were the club where he first codified the rules. In other words, their situation is incredibly unique and interesting, but it's also a massive outlier that makes them hard to compare to anything else.
Even considering all that, the AFL has still pushed for them to merge or relocate in the past.

 

[reanimate]

At this point you are just talking shit in an attempt to rationalise your position post hoc.

The changes the AFL made to get their good results were sweeping; they relocated one club, literally forced another to fold then gave their assets to another out of town club to legitimise them, forced all their clubs out of their traditional suburban grounds into shared stadia, pressured certain clubs into rebranding (there's a reason why it's the Western Bulldogs and not Footscray anymore), forced league wide rebranding multiple times, enforced ticket taxes, etc, etc.
All things you wouldn't accept for Manly, and it still hasn't been enough as they are still constantly pushing for more significant sweeping changes.

Everything you’re talking about comes down to good governance from the game’s governing body. Rationalising grounds to the extent that the AFL has wouldn’t work for Sydney, but that doesn’t mean the NRL couldn’t be aiming to get Roosters/Rabbitohs out of a good Eastern Stadium, Tigers/Eels/Dogs out of a good ANZ refurbishment or partially out of Parra, Sharks/Dragons out of a southern stadium with upgrades to Manly/Penrith/Parra. That’s just an example, there’s been practically no governance, no lobbying, no vision, just ad hoc garbage.

Even absolute joke situations like the North Sydney district still existing doesn’t get an iota of attention from the governing body. It’s a situation that could have been remedied years ago with direction and governance from the NRL.

The AFL have shown that clubs don’t need to have rebranding forced on them to succeed, just good marketing and good governance for the overall direction of the game from the game’s central body.

On the Demons; they are the oldest professional football club (of any code) on the planet. They literally predate the codified rules of Aussie rules football as they were founded by Tom Wills and were the club where he first codified the rules. In other words, their situation is incredibly unique and interesting, but it's also a massive outlier that makes them hard to compare to anything else.
Even considering all that, the AFL has still pushed for them to merge or relocate in the past.

Hardly, two of the worst performing Melbourne AFL clubs are the generically named Melbourne and North Melbourne (barely anyone outside Melbourne or the AFL world would be aware that ‘North Melbourne’ refers to a specific suburb, not a large northern region). It goes to show that success has many more factors than the club’s name.

 

[MugaB]

On the Demons; they are the oldest professional football club (of any code) on the planet. They literally predate the codified rules of Aussie rules football as they were founded by Tom Wills and were the club where he first codified the rules. In other words, their situation is incredibly unique and interesting, but it's also a massive outlier that makes them hard to compare to anything else.
Even considering all that, the AFL has still pushed for them to merge or relocate in the past.

So why not just move the Demons to Hobart...... hahahaha im just having a GROTD moment, seriously the gall to want to move certian established clubs.
I get that business is business and if you want to survive or better yet profit you need to be more marketable, but what can you better when the Competition overlords aren't pulling weight either.. as for MANLY, they need to look at bringing in more from the gosford area, and atleast start playing a few more games there per year, and probably rebrand to include that central coast area, no point looking at North shore or hornsby and go, well bears got that f**k it then, branch out around them, you wanna be the northern beaches, stretch to Newcastle, ive mentioned it before a weeks back, :Manly-CC Eagles", add a C and change a "sea" to a C, northern eagles didn't work as a merger, but the set up was right, gosford, eagles, colors, just the old bears/manly fans and board didn't get on.
This wouldn't be the same as its only one fanbase, one board, not a merger, if dragons as a merger can include illawarra, manly without a merger can include CC

 

[Billythekid]

next fta deal the nrl should tell whoever gets it that Thursday and Friday nights they can choose fixture but the Sunday game will be equally shared out. It impacts clubs ability to attract sponsors if they are never on fta.

And push hard for a Saturday night FTA. The FTA games seem have no impact on fox numbers and there is no reason we shouldn’t see this (super Saturday will still be a thing).

 

[The Great Dane]

Everything you’re talking about comes down to good governance from the game’s governing body. Rationalising grounds to the extent that the AFL has wouldn’t work for Sydney, but that doesn’t mean the NRL couldn’t be aiming to get Roosters/Rabbitohs out of a good Eastern Stadium, Tigers/Eels/Dogs out of a good ANZ refurbishment or partially out of Parra, Sharks/Dragons out of a southern stadium with upgrades to Manly/Penrith/Parra. That’s just an example, there’s been practically no governance, no lobbying, no vision, just ad hoc garbage.

Even absolute joke situations like the North Sydney district still existing doesn’t get an iota of attention from the governing body. It’s a situation that could have been remedied years ago with direction and governance from the NRL.

The AFL only forced those moves because the clubs weren't making them themselves... So if you are looking for bad governance then start with the clubs, because that's where the real problems are.

The NRL shouldn't have to force Wests to pick one home ground/region/market and stick with it instead of trying to be everything to everyone, they shouldn't have to pressure Manly to make moves to move out of Brookvale when it's obvious to any neutral observer that the joint simply isn't up to NRL standard anymore, etc, etc.
If the clubs were even half decent businesses they'd look at their bottom lines, see there were problems, do market research to identify the problems, and then move to address them to the best of their ability. That doesn't happen at most clubs in any significant manner, and it's ridiculous to suggest that that is the governing body's fault when in reality even if the NRL did try to do anything to correct some of those issues it'd cause open rebellion in the NRL because they don't have the power to push for change that the AFL does/did.

BTW, the irony of you agreeing that the NRL should move to more shared stadia but not for your beloved Manly isn't lost on me, and is symptomatic of the problem with a lot of clubs and why they are struggling.

The AFL have shown that clubs don’t need to have rebranding forced on them to succeed, just good marketing and good governance for the overall direction of the game from the game’s central body.

I gave you two explicit examples where the AFL pressured for/forced rebranding to help clubs become more sustainable.

Footscray - Western Bulldogs.
Brisbane Bears - Brisbane Lions.

Hardly, two of the worst performing Melbourne AFL clubs are the generically named Melbourne and North Melbourne (barely anyone outside Melbourne or the AFL world would be aware that ‘North Melbourne’ refers to a specific suburb, not a large northern region). It goes to show that success has many more factors than the club’s name.

Firstly, Melbourne and North Melbourne aren't 'generically named'. Their names refer to specific regions of the city, literally Melbourne's CBD and as you say the suburb of North Melbourne.

Secondly, neither of them are struggling because of their brand. They are struggling because they are from areas with large amounts of demographic change and are also effectively hemmed in by bigger competition with no room for them to naturally grow into. In other words they are like a few of the NRL clubs in that they are stuck in small regions of the city and surrounded by bigger, stronger, more well financed competition, and have struggled to grow beyond their boarders because of all sorts of reasons.

That wasn't a problem for Footscray, they had space to grow west, but if it was going to work they needed to make changes to appeal to the market, i.e. rebrand as the Western Bulldogs and heavily market in that area.

Manly could do the same in North Sydney, but it isn't going to work unless you are willing to sacrifice to make it work, and that is where the problem is because you aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary, as this whole conversation of you starting with the conclusion that Manly can't/shouldn't change in any way and trying to rationalise that position post hoc proves.

Can't say I blame you for that position either considering that the club it's self probably reckons it can scrape by on it's grants, and that if the worst does happen that the NRL will find a way to bail them out like they do every failed club despite claiming they won't save anymore. So there's no incentive to improve, so why bother.

 

[The Great Dane]

So why not just move the Demons to Hobart...... hahahaha im just having a GROTD moment, seriously the gall to want to move certian established clubs.

TBF they were more of a target for mergers than relocations.

They almost merged with Hawthorn and Fitzroy.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

No one has convinced me that Manly would be worse off rebranding as North Sydney Sea Eagles or Northern Sydney Sea Eagles.

I'd even have them adopt the red and black colours of North Sydney Bears and have them wear a hoop design, similar to South Sydney. Push the club as having history dating back to 1908 through Norths. Give North Sydney Bears a 10% or 20% stake in the club so it has an extra source of income. Now you have a club that has the long history and link to RL's debut in Australia, through Norths, and the success of the Sea Eagles. It represents 2 districts and has room to grow. North Sydney has a large business centre, so there's more opportunities for the club to become a powerhouse off the field.

 

[reanimate]

The AFL only forced those moves because the clubs weren't making them themselves... So if you are looking for bad governance then start with the clubs, because that's where the real problems are.

The NRL shouldn't have to force Wests to pick one home ground/region/market and stick with it instead of trying to be everything to everyone, they shouldn't have to pressure Manly to make moves to move out of Brookvale when it's obvious to any neutral observer that the joint simply isn't up to NRL standard anymore, etc, etc.
If the clubs were even half decent businesses they'd look at their bottom lines, see there were problems, do market research to identify the problems, and then move to address them to the best of their ability. That doesn't happen at most clubs in any significant manner, and it's ridiculous to suggest that that is the governing body's fault when in reality even if the NRL did try to do anything to correct some of those issues it'd cause open rebellion in the NRL because they don't have the power to push for change that the AFL does/did.

Exactly, they’re a weak governing body who can’t even put pressure on to fix even the most obvious of errors. Of course the clubs are pathetically governed, some of the AFL clubs are terribly governed too, but the difference is the AFL’s overall direction and vision for their game is far superior to the NRL’s.

BTW, the irony of you agreeing that the NRL should move to more shared stadia but not for your beloved Manly isn't lost on me, and is symptomatic of the problem with a lot of clubs and why they are struggling.

As I said, it’s just an example. If you can come up with a scenario where Manly fans can achieve travel times that aren’t prohibitive to a centralised stadium, then I’m all ears. One day, the tunnel may make it possible, that’s a long way off though.

Until then, I don’t believe Manly should move to a shared stadium for the same reason the AFL hasn’t pushed Geelong to move to Marvel. The ~1 hr 20min journey via public transport from the major population centres of both teams is the barrier. Don’t believe me? Try looking at public transport times from, for example, Dee Why to the SFS at peak times. If it was less prohibitive, then it’d be a good move. I know Geelong plays out of a good stadium, but that’s again due to good governance from the AFL. They helped Geelong lobby for upgrades and chipped in funding. That’s been lacking from the NRL, who can’t make up their mind as to what the right move is in regard to stadiums.

I gave you two explicit examples where the AFL pressured for/forced rebranding to help clubs become more sustainable.

Footscray - Western Bulldogs.
Brisbane Bears - Brisbane Lions.

And there’s multiple examples of rebranding not forced on clubs, even the struggling ones. Beyond that, there’s multiple examples of clubs retaining their original/existing branding and becoming powerhouses.

Firstly, Melbourne and North Melbourne aren't 'generically named'. Their names refer to specific regions of the city, literally Melbourne's CBD and as you say the suburb of North Melbourne.

Secondly, neither of them are struggling because of their brand. They are struggling because they are from areas with large amounts of demographic change and are also effectively hemmed in by bigger competition with no room for them to naturally grow into. In other words they are like a few of the NRL clubs in that they are stuck in small regions of the city and surrounded by bigger, stronger, more well financed competition, and have struggled to grow beyond their boarders because of all sorts of reasons.

That wasn't a problem for Footscray, they had space to grow west, but if it was going to work they needed to make changes to appeal to the market, i.e. rebrand as the Western Bulldogs and heavily market in that area.

Manly could do the same in North Sydney, but it isn't going to work unless you are willing to sacrifice to make it work, and that is where the problem is because you aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary, as this whole conversation of you starting with the conclusion that Manly can't/shouldn't change in any way and trying to rationalise that position post hoc proves.

Can't say I blame you for that position either considering that the club it's self probably reckons it can scrape by on it's grants, and that if the worst does happen that the NRL will find a way to bail them out like they do every failed club despite claiming they won't save anymore. So there's no incentive to improve, so why bother.

To outsiders who don’t know the history of the AFL, they are generically named. How’s an American going to know the difference between the represented area of the Melbourne Demons, Melbourne Victory and Melbourne Storm?

The growth of other clubs have shown rebranding isn’t necessary to succeed. E.g. Hawthorn grew further east without rebranding as the Eastern Hawks and the Bulldogs are still one of the smaller teams in the city, their growth has been far outstripped by the teams who didn’t rebrand.

I don’t think there’s any point in Manly rebranding to try and appease the former Bears audience or anyone with hang ups over the history of RL in the area. They won’t accept any club with ties to Manly, no matter how it’s branded. If the point is to attract new fans with no hang ups about the Bears or the history in the area, there’s no point in rebranding, other than to modify the existing brand to represent the North Shore too. The AFL clubs have shown effective promotion and advertising is far more effective than rebranding.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Exactly, they’re a weak governing body who can’t even put pressure on to fix even the most obvious of errors. Of course the clubs are pathetically governed, some of the AFL clubs are terribly governed too, but the difference is the AFL’s overall direction and vision for their game is far superior to the NRL’s.

As I said, it’s just an example. If you can come up with a scenario where Manly fans can achieve travel times that aren’t prohibitive to a centralised stadium, then I’m all ears. One day, the tunnel may make it possible, that’s a long way off though.

Until then, I don’t believe Manly should move to a shared stadium for the same reason the AFL hasn’t pushed Geelong to move to Marvel. The ~1 hr 20min journey via public transport from the major population centres of both teams is the barrier. Don’t believe me? Try looking at public transport times from, for example, Dee Why to the SFS at peak times. If it was less prohibitive, then it’d be a good move. I know Geelong plays out of a good stadium, but that’s again due to good governance from the AFL. They helped Geelong lobby for upgrades and chipped in funding. That’s been lacking from the NRL, who can’t make up their mind as to what the right move is in regard to stadiums.

And there’s multiple examples of rebranding not forced on clubs, even the struggling ones. Beyond that, there’s multiple examples of clubs retaining their original/existing branding and becoming powerhouses.

To outsiders who don’t know the history of the AFL, they are generically named. How’s an American going to know the difference between the represented area of the Melbourne Demons, Melbourne Victory and Melbourne Storm?

The growth of other clubs have shown rebranding isn’t necessary to succeed. E.g. Hawthorn grew further east without rebranding as the Eastern Hawks and the Bulldogs are still one of the smaller teams in the city, their growth has been far outstripped by the teams who didn’t rebrand.

I don’t think there’s any point in Manly rebranding to try and appease the former Bears audience or anyone with hang ups over the history of RL in the area. They won’t accept any club with ties to Manly, no matter how it’s branded. If the point is to attract new fans with no hang ups about the Bears or the history in the area, there’s no point in rebranding, other than to modify the existing brand to represent the North Shore too. The AFL clubs have shown effective promotion and advertising is far more effective than rebranding.

I just had a look at how long it takes to get from North Sydney, Manly and Dee Why to the SFS. It's similar to what it'll take to get from Redcliffe to Lang Park.

It would take me over an hour to get from Rochedale South to Lang Park if I were to leave now.



If the hypocrites and sooks from Sydney think it's alright for people from Logan and Moreton Bay to have to travel over an hour to get to Lang Park, then Sydney RL fans can shut up, practice what they preach and travel an hour or more to get to the football. Rebrand Manly as the North Sydney Sea Eagles, red and black hoops, playing out of SFS.

 

[Perth Red]

A manly, what we they may be called, representing the whole north shore isn’t about converting old bears fans, it’s about making sure the 10 year olds in the region grow up wanting to play and watch rugby league.

 

[Santino Patane]

For what it’s worth, my idea for the area is this:-

No one is getting relocated realistically unless a team seriously fails hard financially due to the NRL committed to maintain the existing footprint. Further to this, Manly won’t stop playing at Brookvale anytime soon pending something serious. But one thing that is still in play is development footprint, and there’s a big hole north of the harbour. So with a bit of support from HQ and a good bit of work and branding marketing by Manly, land this:-

Manly take over the entire north, from the northern beaches through Ryde etc. Keep the same strip, stay at Brookvale but maybe a slight rename to “Norths Manly Sea Eagles”. The NRL would need to incentivise Manly to do the real job of growing the entire area, but hopefully over time of the region sees the right things, hopefully it translates to some better crowds and a better focus on participation.

 

[reanimate]

I just had a look at how long it takes to get from North Sydney, Manly and Dee Why to the SFS. It's similar to what it'll take to get from Redcliffe to Lang Park.

It would take me over an hour to get from Rochedale South to Lang Park if I were to leave now.

View attachment 47805

If the hypocrites and sooks from Sydney think it's alright for people from Logan and Moreton Bay to have to travel over an hour to get to Lang Park, then Sydney RL fans can shut up, practice what they preach and travel an hour or more to get to the football. Rebrand Manly as the North Sydney Sea Eagles, red and black hoops, playing out of SFS.

Once there's a weekly game out of Suncorp, maybe you'll have a case for playing some games outside the city, or to use the growth of teams/games in the city as weapons to lobby for another good stadium or two elsewhere in the city. Until then, if it's going to be a problem for the Dolphins/Jets, maybe they aren't the team to admit into the NRL.

 

[Perth Red]

Once there's a weekly game out of Suncorp, maybe you'll have a case for playing some games outside the city, or to use the growth of teams/games in the city as weapons to lobby for another good stadium or two elsewhere in the city. Until then, if it's going to be a problem for the Dolphins/Jets, maybe they aren't the team to admit into the NRL.

nothing to do with CC or bears!

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

nothing to do with CC or bears!

CC should be well down the list of candidates for a new team while Adelaide, Perth, Logan, Ipswich, Moreton Bay, Christchurch and Wellington are without a team. Bears as a brand is history and its fans need to accept that.

The Bears brand is shit, but North Sydney can be an asset if it is adopted by the Manly Sea Eagles. It'll give them a larger catchment and open up commercial opportunities that simply don't exist for them while they're tucked away in the peninsula.

I find it amusing yet infuriating how Sydney RL fans go psycho the minute it is suggested that Manly Sea Eagles become the North Sydney Sea Eagles, because they think it will lead to all Sea Eagles fans throwing their jerseys in the bin and running down to Rebel to buy a Swans guernsey and traveling 1h20m to SCG to watch them play, despite apparently not being able to relocate the Manly Sea Eagles to the SFS because it is 1h20m away, but think the Bears can return as Central Coast/Gold Coast/Perth/Adelaide Bears and still be a massive club in North Sydney, despite never being that popular there when they were the North Sydney Bears.

 

[Dark Corner]

I just had a look at how long it takes to get from North Sydney, Manly and Dee Why to the SFS. It's similar to what it'll take to get from Redcliffe to Lang Park.

It would take me over an hour to get from Rochedale South to Lang Park if I were to leave now.

View attachment 47805

If the hypocrites and sooks from Sydney think it's alright for people from Logan and Moreton Bay to have to travel over an hour to get to Lang Park, then Sydney RL fans can shut up, practice what they preach and travel an hour or more to get to the football. Rebrand Manly as the North Sydney Sea Eagles, red and black hoops, playing out of SFS.

No having Manly playing out of the SFS is as mad as having West Tigers playing out of the SFS or Souths out of ANZ...clusterf**k might apply to the rules of Aussie Rules and lots of Rugby Union games happen but TGG management are up the and not with the product...too many teams/too many grounds and mergers....like ME simple is better ala NFL.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

No having Manly playing out of the SFS is as mad as having West Tigers playing out of the SFS or Souths out of ANZ...clusterf**k might apply to the rules of Aussie Rules and lots of Rugby Union games happen but TGG management are up the and not with the product...too many teams/too many grounds and mergers....like ME simple is better ala NFL.

???

 

[MugaB]

???

He is saying youre a moron