Coach Robinson advocates 20game season

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

It’ll mean the game gets spread around even less.

Clubs will become protective of their 10 home games - say goodbye to country matches, Perth, Wellington, etc.

I think the new bunch of rep games will make up for that. Better yet, games in the regions wont depend on the whims of sydney-centric club bosses.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

He didn't advocate Origin back to back at end of season as it would be like 4 grand finals in a row.
So suspect he wanted 3 rep style rounds where NRL pauses.

Kent started talking money and tv deals and cost to players as less games equals less money for them

Top players would still get money from their state or country on top of their NRL salary.

As Wayne said the international game needs to grow to grow the game and the potential revenue pot.

I think it will be good for the game if the player salaried are more skewed towards the rep payents. Club salary should act as the base salary with the BIG bonuses coming from rep games.

Players would be fighting for spots, asking for more rep games and they would be very conscious of their own image for fear of damaging their selection chances.

I think we would also see less of players changing clubs to chance big contracts. The focus would be on making your team successful to get noticed by the selectors.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I understand that - but with only 10 home games there are suddenly fewer 'undesirable' home games. Also clubs home stadiums would offer better deals to keep the content.

So fewer shit games, clubs have a better bargaining position and we have space do develop rep footy.

This sounds like a great idea.

 

[GongPanther]

unless the players are prepared to take a pay cut

This^.Bet the players step back if their wallets were to be 4 weeks wages lighter. And I assume that the season ticket pricing would be making the clubs quite a bit worse off. And yea,after pumping millions into a new Parra stadium,the NSW state gov would be filthy with 4 less games if it was to be shared around during the season proper. No way the season is going to be shortened.

 

[veggiepatch1959]

North America, once the Toronto Wolfpack, New York and Boston teams get up and running in Super League. Lots of failed NFL and CFL players are going to switch to rugby league, as are north American rugby union backs.

Never heard of the f**kers.

 

[TheFrog]

Unless the league wants to take a financial hit - which means in effect, unless the players are prepared to take a pay cut - the seasons length is the seasons length.

Unless they put in a knockout, like I said. It would not be hard to make it attractive for clubs to participate. How about 1st Prize 3 premiership points, 2nd Prize 2 points, 3rd 1 point.

 

[typicalfan]

This^.Bet the players step back if their wallets were to be 4 weeks wages lighter. And I assume that the season ticket pricing would be making the clubs quite a bit worse off. And yea,after pumping millions into a new Parra stadium,the NSW state gov would be filthy with 4 less games if it was to be shared around during the season proper. No way the season is going to be shortened.

And the game will never grow. Then once TV goes into free fall so does the code.

The argument the players will make is Quality vs Quantity. Less games means more effort goes into each game and each game is a bigger spectacle. And it will reduce player burnout.

 

[carcharias]

And the game will never grow. Then once TV goes into free fall so does the code.

The argument the players will make is Quality vs Quantity. Less games means more effort goes into each game and each game is a bigger spectacle. And it will reduce player burnout.

I agree
Having all these knock out comp things won’t really do much.
Remember the super league and all the bullshit extra club challenge games.

It was shit.

I reckon 16 games is better than 20
It is too unfair

Play everyone once
Maybe SOO and rep month in the middle

 

[Meapro Ham]

This^.Bet the players step back if their wallets were to be 4 weeks wages lighter. And I assume that the season ticket pricing would be making the clubs quite a bit worse off. And yea,after pumping millions into a new Parra stadium,the NSW state gov would be filthy with 4 less games if it was to be shared around during the season proper. No way the season is going to be shortened.

Bit of a simplistic way to look at it. They don’t get paid by the game, they’re not going to get paid less just because there a few less games. The idea would be increase quality of the NRL games and the quantity of rep games and grow revenue and wages, not reduce them.

 

[GongPanther]

The argument the players will make is Quality vs Quantity.

The players won't seriously come with that argument. In having a shorter season still has teams coming first to last,so you will still see poor quality games depending on certain match-ups. It's unavoidable.

For example,in an NFL season,they play 16 games and one bye. During the season,they have their games were you'd think they were the Superbowl. And on the other side of the coin,you have games were you contact the NFL demading you get a refund on the 3 hours you'll never get back.

My point is no matter the kind of pro sport you follow,you simply can't change it's defining issues,whether good or bad no matter how many games are played.

Do the players take a pay cut?...no.

Do the clubs lose money in have two less home games?...yes.

Will Foxtel reduce their sports subscription from $25 per month?...highly unlikely.(which would lead to a large customer backlash and therefore unsubscribe)

Will the NRL value in contract negotations drop?...of course.

 

[GongPanther]

Bit of a simplistic way to look at it. They don’t get paid by the game, they’re not going to get paid less just because there a few less games. The idea would be increase quality of the NRL games and the quantity of rep games and grow revenue and wages, not reduce them.

What is so complicated about this topic that made my point simplistic?

Are you going to your boss and demand to him that you want to work 1 hour less because it would improve your productivity?

Your boss would probably say "if you're not working as hard as you should be now with the hours that you work,we can find someone who can"

 

[typicalfan]

The players won't seriously come with that argument. In having a shorter season still has teams coming first to last,so you will still see poor quality games depending on certain match-ups. It's unavoidable.

For example,in an NFL season,they play 16 games and one bye. During the season,they have their games were you'd think they were the Superbowl. And on the other side of the coin,you have games were you contact the NFL demading you get a refund on the 3 hours you'll never get back.

My point is no matter the kind of pro sport you follow,you simply can't change it's defining issues,whether good or bad no matter how many games are played.

Do the players take a pay cut?...no.

Do the clubs lose money in have two less home games?...yes.

Will Foxtel reduce their sports subscription from $25 per month?...highly unlikely.(which would lead to a large customer backlash and therefore unsubscribe)

Will the NRL value in contract negotations drop?...of course.

Do you know why NFL only has 17 rounds and a short playoff series?

 

[typicalfan]

What is so complicated about this topic that made my point simplistic?

Are you going to your boss and demand to him that you want to work 1 hour less because it would improve your productivity?

Your boss would probably say "if you're not working as hard as you should be now with the hours that you work,we can find someone who can"

Would you do it if you were working 16 hours a day?

 

[GongPanther]

Do you know why NFL only has 17 rounds and a short playoff series?

The same reason why we have 24 with 2 byes? I dunno...because of their players union?

 

[Last Week]

Baby steps..

For the next deal, I'd settle for 22 rounds.

After round 15, a month off of NRL.
3 weeks of rep matches.
Origin on the Sundays, Pacific tests in a round robin, what ever NZ wants to do. I'd like to see each of the pacific teams host at least one match in their home country.
Then carry on with the season.

If we expanded to 18 or 20 teams, I'd keep it at 22 rounds.

 

[GongPanther]

Would you do it if you were working 16 hours a day?

I'm asking you. You're riding around the questions I put out to you. If you don't have any answers,that is OK,it's not a pissing contest.

 

[GongPanther]

Baby steps..

For the next deal, I'd settle for 22 rounds.

After round 15, a month off of NRL.
3 weeks of rep matches.
Origin on the Sundays, Pacific tests in a round robin, what ever NZ wants to do. I'd like to see each of the pacific teams host at least one match in their home country.
Then carry on with the season.

If we expanded to 18 or 20 teams, I'd keep it at 22 rounds.

What about the non-rep players who will end up having no solid football action for a whole month?

Be OK for those who are nursing niggling injuries,but it will take a week or two when the comp restarts for a good number of players to get back to match fitness.

 

[Meapro Ham]

What is so complicated about this topic that made my point simplistic?

Are you going to your boss and demand to him that you want to work 1 hour less because it would improve your productivity?

Your boss would probably say "if you're not working as hard as you should be now with the hours that you work,we can find someone who can"

Not a very good example! It’s nothing like a standard workplace.

Obviously they would be looking at finding a way to reduce the number of NRL games but still increase revenue and wages, not reduce them. You’re assuming there is this simplistic direct correlation between the number of games and the amount of revenue generated, but it’s not that simple.

 

[typicalfan]

I'm asking you. You're riding around the questions I put out to you. If you don't have any answers,that is OK,it's not a pissing contest.

I think the season is too long and it affects the quality of the product and it makes it harder to grow out sport internationally. That’s my opinion.

 

[GongPanther]

Not a very good example! It’s nothing like a standard workplace.

Obviously they would be looking at finding a way to reduce the number of NRL games but still increase revenue and wages, not reduce them. You’re assuming there is this simplistic direct correlation between the number of games and the amount of revenue generated, but it’s not that simple.

It's an occum's razer approach to the point that when you have 4 weeks worth of less bums on seats,I can't see how they can give rises in wages and increase revenue,unless they price gouge the fans. And that will go down like a lead baloon.

What do you think they would do?