Entire Wests Tigers Board Sacked

[Bukowski]

I assume he’s talking about East’s brisbane

I’ve said for years I’m not completely against the club relocating out of Sydney. In hindsight the mergers were all wrong and should have been:

* Sharks and Steelers - Southern Sharks
* Magpies and Dogs - Western Bulldogs
* Tigers and North’s - relocate to Central Coast
* Dragons - relocate, merge or die

Correct

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Seems the lunatics from the expansion forum have invaded.

There is no way in hell an interim board or a new board are going to say: 'you know what? we had a good run, it didn't work out Lets relocate to Brisbane.'

Anyone who thinks that should be locked up in the looney bin.

 

[Wb1234]

I assume he’s talking about East’s brisbane

I’ve said for years I’m not completely against the club relocating out of Sydney. In hindsight the mergers were all wrong and should have been:

* Sharks and Steelers - Southern Sharks
* Magpies and Dogs - Western Bulldogs
* Tigers and North’s - relocate to Central Coast
* Dragons - relocate, merge or die

Yep

easts Brisbane get the tigers. Logo

wests bring back the magpies

when easts brisbane travel to Sydney they can play some away games at leichardt oval

 

[Wb1234]

Roosters don't need them. Also why would my club take any first grade game to that dump of a ground? It would be a loss maker financially. Even the Wests Tigers admin has known that for decades.

Oh I meant easts tigers brisbane not easts Sydney

 

[The Great Dane]

I assume he’s talking about East’s brisbane

I’ve said for years I’m not completely against the club relocating out of Sydney. In hindsight the mergers were all wrong and should have been:

* Sharks and Steelers - Southern Sharks
* Magpies and Dogs - Western Bulldogs
* Tigers and North’s - relocate to Central Coast
* Dragons - relocate, merge or die

Nah, mergers never work when they're forced, and all those mergers would've happened under duress just like the ones that actually happened.

With hindsight the reality is that there shouldn't have been any mergers at all. The 14 most viable and strategically important clubs should have got the licenses, and the rest should have either been dropped to the second tier or folded if that wasn't viable. Yeah that would've been unfortunate, but we'd have been better off for it in the long run, and it'd already be ancient history by now.

 

[Wb1234]

Nah, mergers never work when they're forced, and all those mergers would've happened under duress just like the ones that actually happened.

With hindsight the reality is that there shouldn't have been any mergers at all. The 14 most viable and strategically clubs should have got the licenses, and the rest should have either been dropped to the second tier or folded if that wasn't viable. Yeah that would've been unfortunate, but we'd have been better off for it in the long run, and it'd already be ancient history by now.

Bingo

but 16 or 18 teams

 

[The Great Dane]

Bingo

but 16 or 18 teams

Rightly or wrongly that simply wasn't in the cards at the time.

 

[Wb1234]

Rightly or wrongly that simply wasn't in the cards at the time.

Wrongly as things turned out

the arl should’ve stood up to Murdoch for the good of the overall game

if could’ve saved super league clubs like Perth

news ltd realised the 12 team comp was struggling when they let south’s stay in after they won their appeal against them

 

[mongoose]

Seems the lunatics from the expansion forum have invaded.

There is no way in hell an interim board or a new board are going to say: 'you know what? we had a good run, it didn't work out Lets relocate to Brisbane.'

Anyone who thinks that should be locked up in the looney bin.

Western Pacifika Tigers? you know its logical

 

[Reflector]

How long before a de-merger?

Western Sydney Magpies
Brisbane Tigers

Make it happen

 

[The Great Dane]

Wrongly as things turned out

the arl should’ve stood up to Murdoch for the good of the overall game

if could’ve saved super league clubs like Perth

news ltd realised the 12 team comp was struggling when they let south’s stay in after they won their appeal against them

I don't know whether or not I agree that it was wrong. A lot of it would have depended on which extra teams they intended to include, but given the nature of the times it probably would just have been used to sneak some of the smaller failing Sydney sides into the NRL instead of being used strategically for the long term good of the game.

It's patently ridiculous to blame News solely for the shemozzle that was the reunification and creation of the NRL, and nothing was stopping the ARL from pushing for the inclusion of clubs in places like Perth and Adelaide in the first place.

They let Souths stay in the comp because they were afraid of the fallout of kicking them out again, not because of any change of heart. South not being kicked back out effectively forced the NRL to expand way before it was ready as well, and a series of other knock-on effects that the league would have been much better off avoiding.

But we're wandering wildly off topic at this point.

 

[some11]

Seems the lunatics from the expansion forum have invaded.

There is no way in hell an interim board or a new board are going to say: 'you know what? we had a good run, it didn't work out Lets relocate to Brisbane.'

Anyone who thinks that should be locked up in the looney bin.

Most would be in favour of just unifying under one and blowing the other up.

The current setup has soiled both.

 

[flippikat]

I don't know whether or not I agree that it was wrong. A lot of it would have depended on which extra teams they intended to include, but given the nature of the times it probably would just have been used to sneak some of the smaller failing Sydney sides into the NRL instead of being used strategically for the long term good of the game.

It's patently ridiculous to blame News solely for the shemozzle that was the reunification and creation of the NRL, and nothing was stopping the ARL from pushing for the inclusion of clubs in places like Perth and Adelaide in the first place.

They let Souths stay in the comp because they were afraid of the fallout of kicking them out again, not because of any change of heart. South not being kicked back out effectively forced the NRL to expand way before it was ready as well, and a series of other knock-on effects that the league would have been much better off avoiding.

But we're wandering wildly off topic at this point.

Both sides acted out of self-interest rather than the long-term growth of the game.

Yeah, it's obvious that News Ltd wanted a South-Queensland monopoly for the Broncos (bye Crushers & Chargers, despite the Chargers being on a great track at the time), the TV rights (got 'em!), and reduced costs (No Adelaide, no pricey travel that a Perth team meant at the time), and reduction to 14 teams... and they got a team into Melbourne - the AFL market they *really* wanted.

BUT the ARL didn't seem to fight for Perth & Adelaide (Sure, they were Superleague teams.. but still strategic expansion right?)... Nor the Chargers or Crushers (The two Queensland clubs that WERE loyal).. maybe the thought was "Hey, looks like we're gonna have to get down to 14 teams.. so the more of these teams we can let-go, the less we have to crunch-down on our loyal Sydney clubs?"

But as you say.. that's going off on a real side-track there.

 

[The Man Shake]

Poor Wests Tigers. This should have happened years ago.

What next for them? Merge with the Dragons, and can be a super super club. The St George Illawarra Wests Tigers Dragons has a nice ring to it. Play 2 games each at Leichhardt Oval, Campbelltown, Kogarah and Wollongong, Commbank (Parra) and the SFS.

And if they want to be a real powerhouse… a couple of games at North Sydney Oval.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Both sides acted out of self-interest rather than the long-term growth of the game.

Yeah, it's obvious that News Ltd wanted a South-Queensland monopoly for the Broncos (bye Crushers & Chargers, despite the Chargers being on a great track at the time), the TV rights (got 'em!), and reduced costs (No Adelaide, no pricey travel that a Perth team meant at the time), and reduction to 14 teams... and they got a team into Melbourne - the AFL market they *really* wanted.

BUT the ARL didn't seem to fight for Perth & Adelaide (Sure, they were Superleague teams.. but still strategic expansion right?)... Nor the Chargers or Crushers (The two Queensland clubs that WERE loyal).. maybe the thought was "Hey, looks like we're gonna have to get down to 14 teams.. so the more of these teams we can let-go, the less we have to crunch-down on our loyal Sydney clubs?"

But as you say.. that's going off on a real side-track there.

Adelaide would never have been fought for by the ARL, nor the Reds. You have to remember the political issues within the game, Adelaide was solely created to give Super League a 10th team for its competition when no one else would defect to them, whilst the Reds would have been viewed as traitors. Its responsibility would have been to look after the interests of its then members which did not include either the Reds nor the Rams. If you think they should have, then you are expecting something which was completely unrealistic.

The cuts were partly political. The ARL and News would have agreed I dare say on which teams were going to be sacrificed when the peace deal was being hammered out. I don't think people realising that both side had blead so much money that both sides were close to being on their respective knees financially.

 

[Wb1234]

Adelaide would never have been fought for by the ARL, nor the Reds. You have to remember the political issues within the game, Adelaide was solely created to give Super League a 10th team for its competition when no one else would defect to them, whilst the Reds would have been viewed as traitors. Its responsibility would have been to look after the interests of its then members which did not include either the Reds nor the Rams. If you think they should have, then you are expecting something which was completely unrealistic.

The cuts were partly political. The ARL and News would have agreed I dare say on which teams were going to be sacrificed when the peace deal was being hammered out. I don't think people realising that both side had blead so much money that both sides were close to being on their respective knees financially.

Arl won the battle then lost the war

news got 50 percent ownership of the game, cheap pay tv right, first and last rights over pay tv till 2020 or so and no second brisbane team before 2015

 

[Perth Red]

Arl won the battle then lost the war

news got 50 percent ownership of the game, cheap pay tv right, first and last rights over pay tv till 2020 or so and no second brisbane team before 2015

Plus $8mill a year out of the game, control over who was allowed in the comp, ongoing board management and their man as CEO. And their mates rates continue to this day, avoiding colds and all that.

 

[Wb1234]

Plus $8mill a year out of the game, control over who was allowed in the comp, ongoing board management and their man as CEO. And their mates rates continue to this day, avoiding colds and all that.

Well if clubs and countries like yours hadn’t betrayed the arl that wouldn’t have happened

wa and England helped the super league cause enormously

 

[Perth Red]

Well if clubs and countries like yours hadn’t betrayed the arl that wouldn’t have happened

wa and England helped the super league cause enormously

Was a good call by England, only way they were ever going FT professional.
SL could have worked, Id have liked to have seen News ltd stick at it, they had the better model long term for the game and more ambition.

 

[Wb1234]

Was a good call by England, only way they were ever going FT professional.
SL could have worked, Id have liked to have seen News ltd stick at it, they had the better model long term for the game and more ambition.

Oh well if it was good for England don’t complain when it was bad for Perth

lmao

super league could never work it’s why news ltd lost between 500 and 800 million on their competition