BuffaloRules
Coach
- Messages
- 15,548
How the hell were Penrith supposedly broke at the time on the back of the biggest poker machine palace in the country pumping in the dollars?
The small Sydney clubs like sharks and panthers joined as the ARL had been very clear that they were going to rationalise Sydney down to 5 or 6 clubs and they could see the writing on the wall if they didn't jump. Reds, allegedly, signed as news offered them a massive sponsorship deal and to cover travel that would secure their financial issues that were looming for the foreseeable future. Not sure why the raiders decided to join up?
Reading some of the documents from that time this week it seems that news was being pretty reasonable in offering ARL control of the game, the ARL chairman would be SL chairman, a decent slice of the finances, $73mill a year pay tv funding, a 14 team structure pretty much what ARL had been trying to achieve since the late 80's etc.
packer seems to have been the main factor that the stopped the ARL joining news in a partnership.
Dogs didnt sign on day 1
Brisbane and Canberra were the first two
With Perth, Nth Qld and Auckland deserting the ARL almost immediately
Penrith and Cronulla jumped over because they were both broke
That has SL with 7 teams and on shaky ground
Dogs were offered a huge package to swap over
Then Newcastle-Wests were courted and agreed before the FC members voted no. But the Mariners were off and running
There were then lots of deals to try and get the 10th team - with Redcliffe, Auckland #2 and even Japan being courted. Before they finally setup Adelaide.
North Sydney in the Tina Turner days got better crowds then some of the other Sydney clubs ?If they had fans turn up to games perhaps they'd have survived
They didn't meet the criterion therefore they were cut, manly tried to save them but they tried to white ant manly while not paying for the stadium they were to buy
Thus they died and should never be allowed in North Sydney nor Gosford, they should buy the gold coast
We're talking about 97-98 tho,not 87North Sydney in the Tina Turner days got better crowds then some of the other Sydney clubs ?
Fair enoughWe're talking about 97-98 tho,not 87
Reading some of the documents from that time this week it seems that news was being pretty reasonable in offering ARL control of the game, the ARL chairman would be SL chairman, a decent slice of the finances, $73mill a year pay tv funding, a 14 team structure pretty much what ARL had been trying to achieve since the late 80's etc.
packer seems to have been the main factor that the stopped the ARL joining news in a partnership.
You have a funny idea of reasonable. The sport stops becoming a sport and essentially becomes a TV product first and foremost.
It happened anyway, the Murdoch offer was a good one for the game. ARL still ran the game, we got a strong inter-national top tier 14 club comp, a 20 club second division and a shed load of pay tv money every year. Plus they had a bigger vision for the game in other countries. We ended up with losinpir national profile, sht revenue streams and afl forging ahead after an amicable agreement. The fact arl couldn't do a deal with Murdoch was where the game was lost, pay tv was a relit and Murdoch was never going to let packer control it. But it's all water under the bridge now, time to get on a rebuild the top tier into something more.
If Murdoch got that anyway, how come we didn't get a strong international top tier, 20 team second division and the 'shed' load of pay TV money anyway?
You seemed to think that the game would be better off if we had of taken Murdoch's deal. Hardly as we'd have been sued by Packer for breaking the contract with him. Let alone News Ldts track record of taking care of Rugby League as is.
Can't believe the support for Murdoch and News when after the SL war they couldn't jettison the Reds quick enough...
We're talking about 97-98 tho,not 87
This argument has been done to death and it's been pointed out plenty of times in the past that Packer controlled the FTA and Pay TV rights so the ARL couldn't deal with Murdoch...
Now we move on to why the ARL agreed to the deal with Packer and it has to be explained to the Gen Ys and the Poms living on the other side of the world at the time that Packer secured the ARL rights at such terms as Ten had gone broke mid contract previously and Seven didn't want a bar of RL at that time...so Packer was the only player in town at the time and he certainly knew how to get his maximum pound of flesh..
Can't believe the support for Murdoch and News when after the SL war they couldn't jettison the Reds quick enough...
The criterion was for one year from memory,19981996-1999 was a period where you should not judge figures of established clubs
It was a period where normal fans were staying away in droves
Hell even SL aligned clubs forfieted matches in 1996. If players didnt turn up - why should fans ?
It's a shame the News Ltd press didn't put David Gallops tenure under such srcutiny years ago, then we wouldn't be where we are today ie. playing catch up.
Shame? It was called a strategy.