Mergers and Premiership Tallies

[Bobby DIGital]

Well that's just incorrect. You made that up, not sure why. No worries though, I appreciate that it's difficult for you find a topic where you have some knowledge.
Haha. So much jealously.

Well it upsets you Bobby. Twice now. Can I go for thirds? LOL! Gotcha nose, again.

lol @ you upsetting ME. You overestimate yourself. I should call you Wind-In-The-Willow cos you're full of hot air.

 

[cleary89]

Deceitful arrogance, he is the master.

Lol good one. 0 premierships for you.

 

[Willow]

Why would Balmain supporters give a crap about Wests premierships, or Wests fans Balmain's

That's up to them. Although it seems that some do care.

Illawarra, St George's?

I can't speak for everyone, but the majority of Dragons supporters are happy to embrace the heritage of St George. It's a rich history.

Plus the NRL seems happy enough to promote it when it suits them.

So you agree

That you should agree with me? If so, then we agree. But I don't think we've reached that point yet.

You will see it as the 16th premiership your team has won, the record books will say it's #1

Like you, the NRL might come around one day. lol.

But you missed the point of my post. I am aware that people are desperate for a logical argument and that opinion and viewpoint should be shunted aside in the face of this perception of 'logic'. Problem is, the NRL and NSWRL/ARL are full of inconsistencies. They are, in effect, unreliable witnesses to their own testimony.

The NRL was established in 1998 and yet all the premiership records are acknowledged since 1908. This is a contradiction. I have no problems with the NRL taking ownership of this, but it lacks the logic that people seek. They want their cake and eat too.

I note the deafening silence to the other contradictions raised. Namely the Wests/Cumberland merger. Two separate clubs in 1908, but merged in 1909. And yet, Wests have their history as being established in 1908. Once again, I have no problems with this. But there's a precedent there.

And the name changes, ownership changes, franchise deals etc. Club have change names and controlling entities before, but are allowed to keep their records. It's no worries with me. But it's just another one of those contradictions.

And what of Steve Menzies? Apparently he has score more tries than any other forward, despite playing loads of games in the centres.

This from the NRL's official website:

Menzies, who won 15 caps for the Kangaroos and was a member of their World Cup-winning team in 1995, is the most prolific tryscoring forward in the history of Australia's NRL, with 180 touchdowns in 349 appearances during 16 seasons with Manly.
http://www.nrl.com/news/news/newsarticle/tabid/10874/newsid/60375/steve-menzies-off-to-france/default.aspx

Wait, did they say 16 seasons, 349 games and 180 tries with Manly? Poor old Northern Eagles don't rate a mention. But that's OK, they can change it in the 'official' records, right?

Once again, I have no issues with this. The NRL can obviously move the goal posts as they see fit. But it is a contradiction, and something that people are happy to wear.

That being the 'logic' of this reality we call the NRL, why is so difficult for someone to hold a view where they wish to celebrate their club's 16th premiership?

People shouldn't care, but for some reason they do.

On that, note, I wish to thank those for taking such a keen interest in the heritage and affairs of the club I support.

 

[Danish]

going to be pretty funny when we win on sunday and all this sooking by willow, timmah et al about why record books don't matter becomes moot

 

[Willow]

going to be pretty funny when we win on sunday and all this sooking by willow, timmah et al about why record books don't matter becomes moot

Well I keep saying IF.

I note that you said WHEN.

Obviously you're more confident than me.

Are you going to the game danish?

 

[Timmah]

going to be pretty funny when we win on sunday and all this sooking by willow, timmah et al about why record books don't matter becomes moot

...and yet Dragons fans are arrogant...?

 

[madunit]

Btw, how do you reconcile the Wests / Cumberland merger of 1909? They were two separate clubs, with different teams in 1908. Cumberland were first to falter and they were forced into a merger with Wests the following year. And yet Wests are listed as being established in 1908.

Do you think it came down to the opinion of the day?

I'm pretty sure that was more a case of Cumberland falling to pieces and Wests essentially just taking all of their players. I think the Cumberland RLFC ended up merging with Parramatta RU, before it split up in the mid 40's to have it's own RL Side in the NSWRL.

Anywho, I'll do some digging around and get some info on that whole debacle for you.

We could always attempt an intelligent conversation and respect each other's opnion. I'm always happy to pitch in.

But you can't tell people how to support their team. I'm sorry if this represents a threat to you or anyone else. It is not my intention to upset that apple cart. I just know the team I support.

I don't think everyone involved in this debate is trying to tell anyone how to support their team. It can easily be misconstrewed as such, I understand.

As for the record keeping, well there's an abundance of contradictions there already.

This is a given. And the majority of the problem boils down to the fact that record keeping was never a priority of the NSWRL until the game had been underway for at least 30 odd years. Also, rules for such things as mergers have never been clearly made in regards to past achievements and records of all teams.

IE - players like Rod Wishart are listed as having played for two teams. A lot of the time this is done to differentiate between the two clubs, even though many fans, and possibly Rod himself, would consider them one-club men. They can do that and be essentially correct. It's just that the NRL in all it's wisdom, most likely in an attempt to make record keeping keeping easier (as they are quite lazy) and to avoid any confusion or hard work, opted to reset all info for merged identities.

The still maintain a link to the merged clubs and present their achievements seperately in a way to try and form some flimsy kind of middle ground.

I am also certain that the NRL, established in 1998, is quite comfy with their record keeping and continuing history of the NSWRL since 1908.

I think their record keeping began in the mid 20's actually. All info prior to that is only found either in Newspapers, if the games were actually reported upon, or in club annual reports, which happen to be extremely scarce in number.

And what of all the exotic name changes over the years? Saints are St George Illawarra Dragons, hardly a major shift to what most people have been familair with for a long time now.

But it is a change, which you can't deny. Cronulla, Gold Coast, Balmain, Easts, Canterbury, have also all had name changes throughout their careers. Name changes have never been regarded as a change to the club dynamics, as arguable as that may sound.

And what about the main jersey? The Red V hasn't changed it's basic design since the 1940s, some 60 or 70 years. The first Red V was in the 1930s!

With all due to respect, jerseys these days mean jack sh*t when talking about club history. Teams like Balmain had 3 different jumpers in their first few decades of existence. in their last decade it changed more than 4 times easily. All clubs change the designs on a yearly basis now it seems.

I have no problems with any of this. I accept that glitches happen along the way and footnotes are required. But for some reason, Saints are being told to restart in 1999.

The Saints (St.George) are deemed by the NRL and it's official historians as a closed entity as at 1998. They are 'reset' as of 1999. They are a new identity. Their structure has been altered to what it had been in the past. If they took over Illawarra then their identity would remain, but that is not the case. I have no problems if the fans want to disagree with this and I understand that. But you'd be foolish to think that Illawarra fans will see the merger as an automatic handing to them of 15 premierships do you? The problem I see with this whole debate is that some St.George fans (not you Willow) don't seem to give a sh*t about the Illawarra side of the merger.

This flies in the face of what St George and Illawarra want, the continuing history and heritage. Most Illawarra supporters want to be part of this too. After all, we have shared history in rugby league that goes back to the 1920s, and probably back to 1910.

Same could be said for Newcastle who had the largest NSW RL Competition outside of Sydney before the advent of the Knights in 1988, but only their records of 1988 til present are recorded. Even the Newcastle side of 1908-09 are seen as a seperate entity by the NSWRL. I think this is far more dubious than anything the merged clubs have to deal with regarding history.

Since when did the NRL, established in 1998, earn the right to tell Illawarra and St George how to recognise our heritage?
Selective quoting expected.

I guess since the day they raped it from you and forced you to merge with each other.

Thankfully the Dragons fans are too proud, and rightfully so, to let that go.

 

[meltiger]

I note the deafening silence to the other contradictions raised. Namely the Wests/Cumberland merger. Two separate clubs in 1908, but merged in 1909. And yet, Wests have their history as being established in 1908. Once again, I have no problems with this. But there's a precedent there.

#a - Did Cumberland complete the 1908 season / Honest question, can't remember my history on that one
#b - Was it an actual merger, where administration/home games etc were shared between two identities that remained seperate, or was Cumberland absorbed into the Western Suburbs DRLFC ?

And the name changes, ownership changes, franchise deals etc. Club have change names and controlling entities before, but are allowed to keep their records. It's no worries with me. But it's just another one of those contradictions.

No contradictions at all. They may have different controlling entities, but does the trading name change?

And what of Steve Menzies?

The positional stuff ... lol You are reaching :lol:

Wait, did they say 16 seasons, 349 games and 180 tries with Manly? Poor old Northern Eagles don't rate a mention. But that's OK, they can change it in the 'official' records, right?

Yes, that is incorrect. Any games played for the Northern Eagles should not be reflected as games played for Manly-Warringah

why is so difficult for someone to hold a view where they wish to celebrate their club's 16th premiership?

I never said otherwise, in fact I pretty much said you'll FAIRLY do exactly that

Why do you lot take such offence at having it pointed out that the record books will say #1 ?


& lol at my post being deleted, i shouldn't have said it but geez worse gets posted on here. His bandwagon jumping is just shameful, and vile.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

going to be pretty funny when we win on sunday and all this sooking by willow, timmah et al about why record books don't matter becomes moot

You sound pretty relaxed. Arrogant too. It's funny how we get called arrogant yet many Roosters fans use the word "when" instead of "if" like most Dragons fans.

I hope your players believe the hype like the fans do.

 

[johns_reds]

If you're going to be pedantic about premiership tallies, Brisbane have the most NRL titles. Then there's one each for Melbourne, Newcastle, Roosters, Canterbury, Penrith, Tigers and Manly.

The remaining clubs all have none.

Agree, the Broncos, most decorated club in NRL History!

 

[meltiger]

With regards to the "How dare the NRL tell St George how to recognise their history" viewpoint you are putting forth Willow.

I ask you, does that mean everytime Melbourne claim they were the rightful premiers, that we should recognise they have won 3 premierships?


I note the bandwagon jumper only credits Melbourne with a solitary premiership earlier in the thread, but if you ask anyone in the club, they will say three...


In the case of Melbourne, does their view override all others, or does the official record books count? I mean, how dare we tell them how to recognise their history? Right?

 

[Willow]

I'm pretty sure that was more a case of Cumberland falling to pieces and Wests essentially just taking all of their players. I think the Cumberland RLFC ended up merging with Parramatta RU, before it split up in the mid 40's to have it's own RL Side in the NSWRL.

It doesn't matter how it happened. The fact is that they were separate clubs the year before, they both finished the season, and they merged the next year.

Western Suburbs Magpies - established 1908.

And Meltiger, I have never taken offence to anything you've said. Even when you were calling me out to meet you in a PO box all those years ago. It was a hoot then and I still chuckle about it.

 

[Willow]

With regards to the "How dare the NRL tell St George how to recognise their history" viewpoint you are putting forth Willow.

A lot of them already do say it. Including the players. That's their choice. And yes, even Melbourne supporters are entitled to their point of view. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them though.

I ask you, does that mean everytime Melbourne claim they were the rightful premiers, that we should recognise they have won 3 premierships?

I'm not telling you to recognise anything Meltiger.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

With regards to the "How dare the NRL tell St George how to recognise their history" viewpoint you are putting forth Willow.

I ask you, does that mean everytime Melbourne claim they were the rightful premiers, that we should recognise they have won 3 premierships?


I note the bandwagon jumper only credits Melbourne with a solitary premiership earlier in the thread, but if you ask anyone in the club, they will say three...


In the case of Melbourne, does their view override all others, or does the official record books count? I mean, how dare we tell them how to recognise their history? Right?

What a stupid statement. Those premierships were officially revoked by the NRL. No premierships were revoked in the case of our joint-venture. The record books will reflect 0 premierships for st george-illawarra, 1 if they win this weekend, it doesn't mean either club that is part of the joint venture is not entitled to their history prior to that.

People can "recognise" whatever they want, that is for them to decide.

 

[madunit]

I think it does matter in regards to Wests and Cumberland.

A take over is not a merger. A merger is an equal representation of all parties. A takeover is not.

By your definition, does that mean Balmain esentially merged with Glebe and Annandale when those clubs folded and their players fell into the Balmain residency areas?

Does that also mean that for 13 years, St.George were a merged entity with Newtown and that for 47 years, Cronulla was a merged entity of St.George?

 

[meltiger]

It was a hoot then and I still chuckle about it.

haha Don't quite have the drinking problem I once had and have grown up somewhat in the last 7/8 years my friend ;-)

A lot of them already do say it. Including the players. That's their choice. And yes, even Melbourne supporters are entitled to their point of view. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them though.

But you want St George's 15 premierships recognised, based on the opinion of the supporters and the club itself, why then would you not support Melbourne's supporters and the club who argue they were the rightful premiers?

 

[meltiger]

What a stupid statement. Those premierships were officially revoked by the NRL. No premierships were revoked in the case of our joint-venture. The record books will reflect 0 premierships for st george-illawarra, 1 if they win this weekend, it doesn't mean either club that is part of the joint venture is not entitled to their history prior to that.

People can "recognise" whatever they want, that is for them to decide.

So it's ok to agree with the NRL's official records when it suits, but disagree with the records when it suits? the whole argument here is that St George should be able to determine their own history, not the National Rugby League. So why not Melbourne as well?


No one is arguing St George people shouldn't celebrate it as whatever they want. I've certainly said no such thing.


It's just this shrill crying when it's pointed out it's the JV's first.

 

[Danish]

Touchy bunch these dragons fans aren't they? :lol:

 

[meltiger]

It's funny though.

They don't care what anyone else thinks, yet we're how many pages deep on a topic that has already been done to death within the last few weeks?

 

[Firey_Dragon]

So it's ok to agree with the NRL's official records when it suits, but disagree with the records when it suits? the whole argument here is that St George should be able to determine their own history, not the National Rugby League. So why not Melbourne as well?


No one is arguing St George people shouldn't celebrate it as whatever they want. I've certainly said no such thing.


It's just this shrill crying when it's pointed out it's the JV's first.

No. St George-Illawarra have 0 premierships, or did you miss that when I posted it the first time? I will however be celebrating the 16th as a St George fan if we won it, even if the record books don't reflect it.

I just said your storm comparison was idiotic.