Public support had nothing to do with... The SL concept had failed 6 months before the public even really knew what it was, it had failed before News and Ribot started signing clubs and players in 95.
Do you even know what the original plan for SL was? If not I'll give you the short version-
The initial plan for SL was to create a 14 team national competition that would exist on top of the ARL/NSWRL, all the ARL clubs would own shares in one of the 14 clubs, which would be one city clubs with the exception of Sydney that would have 4 clubs, the "super clubs" would be focused on the corporate side of the business and would basically be run like the Broncos. So in effect the idea was to create an American style 'franchise' based competition that used the ARL as a feeder comp.
It would be backed and completely underwritten by News but it'd be administered in tandem with the ARL, in other words they'd work together to create an all new competition (that was how News would get the rights for it legally, they'd create an all new product of a higher standard and the ARL would continue as intended underneath fulfilling the leagues agreements with Packer, for the sake of brevity I'll leave the detail at that.
The idea was presented to Arko and Quayle and they were obliged to allow News to present it to the clubs, they did this at a meeting a short time afterwards where Arko and Quayle lead the agenda, they rubbished the idea before it was even presented, made out that it threatened the existence of some of the clubs (take a guess at which ones) when in fact they (Arko and Quayle) planned to reduce the numbers in Sydney and not SL who planned to make them all partners in SL, then they allowed the News representatives to make their case, which by News' own admission didn't turnout to be the best presentation they'd ever given with all sorts of things going wrong and them completely misjudging what would interest most of the clubs (they presented the business plan instead of selling them with pomp and circumstance), after News made their presentation they were shuffled out and Kerry Packer was shuffled in, which is not normal practice, and he fear mongered and threaten to "sue the pants" off everybody in the room if they agreed to News proposal even though it had no impact on any of his dealings with the ARL or the clubs at the time.
That all happened in late 94!
That was the original SL plan and the old guard in Sydney didn't even give it a fair hearing, they completely disregarded it as soon as they heard that they wouldn't have complete control over the administration of the game and that their clubs wouldn't necessarily be at the top, they didn't consider the positives and negatives at all and completely threw it out through self interest...
What became Sl wasn't the SL plan, it was News seeing an opportunity to still get what they wanted and a backlash from a group of clubs that felt that they were being completely ignored and treated like second class citizens (which they were) who were also desperate cause due to ARLs' business practices and double standards was sending them broke...
See now you are talking about two different things, you are conflating the success of the SL to the success of News, those are two very different things.
News' goals in RL was always the same, to have an owning share in the sport and to get the pay tv rights and they succeeded in getting them, initially it was going to be cheaper and easier to do that through SL, but when that didn't workout they got it in other ways, namely the NRL.
SL's goals were very different, they were to change the way that the sport was administer and presented and to make it a more marketable and ultimately more profitable product, in theory anyway.
Both SL and News were using each other as a means to an end.
Uh huh, but it's still a massive false equivalency to compare the BBL to SL cause A: SL ended up as an attempt at a hostile takeover of the administration of the sport and the BBL is and always was a CA backed competition that is run and administered by CA, B: BBL wasn't created by a group of disenfranchised stakeholders within it's system with the assistance of a huge media company financially backing it, and C: the BBL had no interference by media companies in it's creation and hasn't been and probably never will become a pawn in a bigger struggle between two large media companies.
The situations aren't even close to equivalent, not in the slightest.
I'm not ignoring SL, just saying that the BBL is't equivalent to it...
FFS I attended the meeting at the Shark's :league club, at which the club decided to go to SL.I have more than a decent idea of SL plans, and News wanting Pay Tv in this country and rugby league providing
the impetus.Please don't tell me how to suck eggs.The club was burnt toast if they didn't push to get in, the money was too enticing.
The desperation by SL to sign players any player such as the likes of a Steve Edmed who struggled at times to make 1st grade ,and earned a motza,was indicative of a failed comp.
But SL was committed to ensure they could provide News with content.The public were not mugs,Sth African players who had never touched a Steeden in anger came on board.
Ribot was going to sell the new game around the world, and News had their Pay Tv content.Much to the dismay of Optus.
LOL.The public answered in spades by steering clear in numbers when clubs made the decision to defect.When expansion started every one appeared happy, except obviously the SL founders.
After one year 1997. both News and the ARL knew it wasn't working as two comps would eventually be a disaster.News because they didn't get the clubs they wanted initially,and the crowds dropped off ,the TV ratings dropped likewise.No Dragons,no Parramatta no Newcastle,they got the scraps Sharks,& Penrith ATT hardly conducive to big crowds or Tv ratings.
In fact it has been suggested the fact the Knights stayed true to the ARL in heartland area, played a big part in helping the ARL dig its heels in and of course the funds of Packer.
I am also aware plans were in place for the ARL to expand to Melbourne,but the war stymied that plan.
And the Sharks were also in the firing line according to some media sources like Masters,to get relocated.
Sure clubs like Wests,Souths ,Illawarra and the Sharks struggling financially were being looked at by the likes of Arko and Quayle,before SL came marching in
When you are suggesting the Sydney Mafia,maybe you should have included KP.He held the RL TV contract ATT,and was going to keep it.Sydney clubs helped provide the tV ratings for Nein.
Yes News succeeded in getting their Pay Tv content, but they also were unprepared for the public backlash by many supporters.It had cost them hundreds of millions,it had cleaned the coffers of the ARL,and you would need to be blind freddie not to notice public anger.
Mate PR brought in the BBL argument,not me not Molly McGee.IOW he used the BBL's success as a basis for NRL success .
The BBL competition doesn't require the removal of suburban clubs all new franchises, regardless of who administers the shebang.What cricket supporters has the BBL got offside,judging by the crowds few if any.The whole thing has run generally smoothly and very successfully.
My point was to show the difference ,which I wasn't going to ignore.So of course the situations are different by the sheer makeup/origins of the teams involved.
