Expansion plans cloudy: NRL

[Nemesis]

Well I proved you wrong

Obviously you are a bitter old fool. I just went through this thread, and no where did you mention anything about using 'real terms' instead of 'absolute terms' when equating crowd numbers. Only when i called you out in your errors did you turn that way.

You are simply a bitter old man who hated Super League and believes that caused serious damage to rugby league, which you are right. And added to the fact the Rabbitohs were thrown out the league, left you bitter and old and full of anger. And you just can't fathom how quickly rugby league has recovered in the past 5-10 years. Sure if Super League never happened, the NRL would be much better off but you just couldn't handle someone coming out and saying there are more fans today than there were in 1994. Cause it is true? Cause you are a bitter old man who can't handle the truth? Cause it proves your bitterness mislayed?

So when I proved you wrong, all you could do was come up with the 'real term' clause even though bobmar never meant such a thing. You know it, I know it. There are more fans today than in 1994.

It is time to get over your super league bitterness.

As the saying goes "Never argue with idiots. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience".
So you win champ... happy? Now fug off and slither back into your hole.

 

[Billythekid]

rofl. some of the pretentious crap early on in this thread from sydney folk is hilarious. this purse fight is also rather amusing.

FTR i think a natural death of sydney clubs will occur... and i think it will be a catalyst for good in our game. there may be short-to-medium term pain... but ultimately it will be a gain. i think the fear mongers that would like us to believe that we will lose too many fans are kidding themselves... because if we were going to lose too many fans if we let x, y or z club die naturally... then they wouldn't be dying naturally as they would be financially viable.

Completely agreed

 

[Miller was a legend]

The only way to settle this is to ask bobmar if he meant in real terms or absolute terms. I can guarantee you 100% he meant absolute terms.

or to shut the f**k up about it!

 

[Mr Opinionated]

or to shut the f**k up about it!

Yep
They both seem to be stubborn old fools who can't give way. Worse thing to do is pit two stubborn fools against each other
Though I agree with eelman in this case.
Another thing is you, Super League didn't come into being until 1996 so the last true non Super League year was 1995. I actually think expanding by four teams was too much. That's another argument.

1995 crowds 3,061,893 (13918 average)
2005 crowds 2,964,288 (16468 average)
2008 crowds 2,993,518 (15591 average)

The final non super league year when compared to best year since super league shows the league has recovered. 2,500 per game increase is an 18% increase which is the same increase in population which means even in real terms crowds aren't down.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

Since your IQ is negative
You obviously think anyone who is highly intelligent would be an idiot
Makes sense cause since you are always wrong, you would think people who are always right would be always wrong and thus idiots.

I mean who else but a geniused moron thinks 14,215 is greater than 15,591

Therefore you just gave me compliment

Thank you, Nemesis

 

[Nemesis]

Though I agree with eelman in this case.

Of course you do... If I wanted your opinion, I'd give it to you.

Another thing is you, Super League didn't come into being until 1996

SL contracts were signed with several club coaches in early 1995.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

Of course you do... If I wanted your opinion, I'd give it to you.

Not only are you a geniused moron
You are a pretentious geniused moron

FFS, get over yourself

And who the f*ck wants your opinion
I mean you are the guy who thinks 14215 > 15591
Your opinion means sh!t

 

[bartman]

because if we were going to lose too many fans if we let x, y or z club die naturally... then they wouldn't be dying naturally as they would be financially viable.

Only three clubs in the enitre league are considered financially viable... brisbane, north queensland (and eventually) gold coast.

Financial viability has little to do with fans really... its' about competing with other codes for sponsorship dollars, competing against other codes for broadcast rights.... Sydney being the biggest city is the most diluted market as far as all that goes, but for the above reasons you need the Sydney clubs intact (as gallop says), otherwise the National Rugby League will just become the QRL and expansion will be this little dream someone had once upon a time...

 

[Mr Opinionated]

Of course you do... If I wanted your opinion, I'd give it to you.
SL contracts were signed with several club coaches in early 1995.

Ooooookay :roll:

What's up your butt?

If you want to be like that, then SL really began in 1986 when Ken Arthurson came up with the 'super league' concept.

 

[Nemesis]

Not only are you a geniused moron
You are a pretentious geniused moron

FFS, get over yourself

And who the f*ck wants your opinion
I mean you are the guy who thinks 14215 > 15591
Your opinion means sh!t

You are a total loser chump... someone who thinks that he is always right, and everyone else is always wrong. This collapse in your objectivity makes any success in life totally impossible for you.

Now run along back to your sheltered workshop f**ktard..

 

[Nemesis]

Ooooookay :roll:

What's up your butt?

If you want to be like that, then SL really began in 1986 when Ken Arthurson came up with the 'super league' concept.

No, it began when contracts were signed and money changed hands in 1995.

 

[Cloud9]

Let me get this straight. Being an ardent supporter of a Sydney side will mean the code would die?

Loyalty is a good thing. Good on you and Nemesis for sticking with the original concepts of your team. However, loyalty to the game is another thing, it is bigger than any 1 team. The competition evolves and new concepts are always proposed.

If your team dissolves and you decide to turn your back on the game for that reason, i think thats just selfish.

 

[Miller was a legend]

I can't believe how much time and energy has been spent arguing over this topic. Expansion will not happen at the expense of Sydney clubs. That we know for certain. Clubs like mine will not disappear, despite the best eforts of some posters in here to wish it the case. These discussions tend to come up when high quality and respected newspapers like the Daily Telegraph via well repspected and trustworthy scribes like Rebecca Wilson, put out articles such as that recent gem, which stated unequivocally that Cronulla were in dire financial trouble and were requesting hand outs from the NRL. people get on the band wagon and start with die Cronulla, die. If they go our little Perths club or PNG or 2nd NZ (Wellington) can replace them, blah blah, wank wank, suddenly everyone is an expert. This News report is plastered with a big headline when it is released, however when the TRUTH comes out this respected newspaper and it's highly honest reporters place a tiny report hidden away which states that Cronulla have NEVER sought a hand out of 2010 moneys. In fact all they sought was clarification that IF needed could the 2009 payment owed to the club be paid a little earlier than normal. The NRL agreed it could.

SO WHAT....this is called cash flow planning and simply ensuring that IF needed the contract moneys due the club could be paid when they needed them.

Now having had my rant on that little Rebecca Wilson induced bullshyte fest, I have thistooffer on expansion.

I don't believe it is all that cloudy at all.

The Sharks have already committed to playing in Adelaide thisi season and I suspect will work towards Adelaide becoming it's second home in future years, with more games scheduled there. They have committed them selves to running training camps and other activities in support of both RL in general and their club.

As I understand it Souths are planning similar in Perth. Even the Bulldogs wanted to get on the bandwagon in Adelaide.

This is the right model in my view. Retain existing clubs but expand their reach. The cost is far less then establishing new franchises and the NRL does not run the risk of disenfranchising thousands of loyal fans.

I suspect Perth Red and others will say that Perth and Adelaide will not adopt Sydney clubs, however that argument would fly in the face of the argument above, which suggested if you do not support RL for RL rather than a particular club you are not a real RL fan. If taht true and Perth and Adelaide don't embrace the Sharks and Souths then they are not true RL fans and don't deserve a team.

Ok my novel ends here with this.

You may not like Nemises and I can assure you he does'nt give a shyte if you do or not, however don't ever doubt his commitment to his club or it's history. I may not get on with him either. but I admire his commitment to Souths.

 

[Miller was a legend]

This is getting very childish

 

[ElectricEelMan]

This is getting very childish

You are probably right
Though I am enjoying it, I think Nemesis is taking it personally.
So I will refrain from any more 'childish' posts

 

[perverse]

Only three clubs in the enitre league are considered financially viable... brisbane, north queensland (and eventually) gold coast.

Financial viability has little to do with fans really... its' about competing with other codes for sponsorship dollars, competing against other codes for broadcast rights.... Sydney being the biggest city is the most diluted market as far as all that goes, but for the above reasons you need the Sydney clubs intact (as gallop says), otherwise the National Rugby League will just become the QRL and expansion will be this little dream someone had once upon a time...

as soon as rugby league went professional it became about financial viability. if clubs can't survive on their own then options such as privitisation should become a very serious consideration. maybe then our clubs will be run like profitable businesses instead of mickey mouse clubs. this goes for all clubs - including my own (newcastle).. and to be honest i'm already resigned to the fact that, in all probability, privitisation is in our future. as a 1 team town i think that is very sad... but with our respectable crowd figures over the past 10 years the blame can only really be pointed at our merchandising and the ridiculous costs of our stadia. oh, and shoddy management... something that really wouldn't be tolerated for so long in a real business.

at the end of the day, i understand how sydney fans feel when talk of their team disappearing surfaces.. i've been a knights fan my whole life and understand the concept of tribalism well.. however i do believe there does come a point whereby a club that cannot support itself long-term, and can't find someone to buy in and run the place properly, should be allowed to wither and die a natural death just like any other business. i really don't think we'll ever be a truly national competition with this many sydney teams. there's just not enough money/fans/sponsorship/etc to go around.

 

[Miller was a legend]

What I would like to know is who is withering and dying? What experts have said this? Where are the financial records to support it?

All I have seen is media speculation using sensational headlines with little fact in content.

Are times tough? Yes of course they are, but tahts not limited to RL

 

[Billythekid]

Only three clubs in the enitre league are considered financially viable... brisbane, north queensland (and eventually) gold coast.

Financial viability has little to do with fans really... its' about competing with other codes for sponsorship dollars, competing against other codes for broadcast rights.... Sydney being the biggest city is the most diluted market as far as all that goes, but for the above reasons you need the Sydney clubs intact (as gallop says), otherwise the National Rugby League will just become the QRL and expansion will be this little dream someone had once upon a time...

So if we lose 1 or 2 Sydney teams that will make us the QRL? I'm not advocating the culling of any teams but if 1 or 2 go broke it will hardly be the end of the world. Yes we need Sydney clubs but i'm not convinced we need 9 sydney clubs.

Quite frankly if a team has a large passionate fanbase than they should be able to get enough memberships to make themselves viable. If they can't than we won't really be losing that many fans anyway.

Just to clarify before people start bashing this post i'm not saying i want any less than 9 teams in Sydney, and i'm not saying i want any killed off.

 

[Loudstrat]

Loyalty is a good thing. Good on you and Nemesis for sticking with the original concepts of your team. However, loyalty to the game is another thing, it is bigger than any 1 team. The competition evolves and new concepts are always proposed.

If your team dissolves and you decide to turn your back on the game for that reason, i think thats just selfish.

Well, excuse me for being selfish about not liking the NRL any more by kicking my first and second teams out. :roll:

If the kicked the Kangaroos out, should I support the Kiwis??????

What I would like to know is who is withering and dying? What experts have said this? Where are the financial records to support it?

According to the AFL trolls and Sydney haters - every Sydney club is about to collapse any second - and has been about to collapse any second since 1995!

 

[Loudstrat]

So if we lose 1 or 2 Sydney teams that will make us the QRL? I'm not advocating the culling of any teams but if 1 or 2 go broke it will hardly be the end of the world. Yes we need Sydney clubs but i'm not convinced we need 9 sydney clubs.

Quite frankly if a team has a large passionate fanbase than they should be able to get enough memberships to make themselves viable. If they can't than we won't really be losing that many fans anyway.

Just to clarify before people start bashing this post i'm not saying i want any less than 9 teams in Sydney, and i'm not saying i want any killed off.

No we don't need 9 sydney teams. But we have them.

What we need less is kicking Sydney teams out for clubs that may get a decent crowd in 20 years time.