It might be a "false" equivalency in your eyes, that doesn't mean it is.The common theme is rationalisation.
There's no interpretation necessary, you are saying two things are similar or the same when they're not.
The contributing circumstances that lead to both SL and the decisions made during the 'peace deals' simply wouldn't be factors if the NRL were to rationalise right now.
It's simply isn't a comparable set of circumstances at all, therefore it's a false equivalency.
The Bear's territory is hardly flowing with large numbers following the lower grade team.Other codes seem to be flourishing at grassroots level in that area.
Newtown an exception, could show them a thing re crowds.
That's called a straw man.
How about responding to what was actually said instead.
Hypocrisy LOL .If my club gets into the financial poo,it relocates I accept the fact.Doesn't mean I'm thrilled at the prospect.I'm talking relocation and/or dropping to a 2nd division.
A club will fold if it can't financially carry on.I've put my hard earned(not chicken feed BTW) into the club, apart from membership ,to assist the club when it was down.Don't tell me how to suck eggs.
Yes it is hypocrisy cause by your own standards the Sharks would have been folded, relocated, or whatever 50 times over throughout their history!
They weren't folded, you wouldn't have accepted it at the time if they had been, and if the rubber was to actually hit the road you wouldn't support it if it was to happen in the future either!
Until then ,and provided its paying its way and has the support it currently enjoys and it remains competitive then so be it.
OK the AFL moved into new areas, and are spending a fortune propping up these new teams,they have the money to do so, as a code ATM we don't.
I forget the numbers off the top of my head but the cost of running an AFL club is much more than running an NRL club, and if the NRL can get the same return that they do from broadcasters for an added game (which seems a reasonable assumption considering that the NRL's TV rights are roughly the same value as the AFL's despite the fact they are selling one more game a round than the NRL) then we'd be able to prop up the two new team and still take a profit off of the top!
However I doubt that it'd be necessary for the NRL to prop up a Brisbane club and maybe even a Perth club anyway, if they did their due diligence and made sure that the club was being run by capable people.
That's why research needs to be done, and indeed Tv execs who pay the TV monies also need to provide some idea of the effect of any Sydney club reductions on their ratings.
The research has been done, in many countries and in many sports (including Australia in AFL), with the correct planning and given a fair amount of time to develop a new support base you can effectively take a failing/small club with a small fan-base and transplant it into a richer and more populous market and replace the old fan-base and more, get the club much more corporate support, and make it more appealing to broadcasters, advertisers, sponsors, etc, etc.
But again this is a straw man cause I and nobody who is informed on the subject is suggesting that any clubs be removed from a televised product, folded or relocated, that'd be counter productive.
So the TV execs wouldn't be losing those ratings they just wouldn't necessarily be packaged as part of the NRL (competition) but instead as part of the 2nd tier comp.
In the case of club members,surely they are entitled to some input, unless the club is a basket case.
Members are also stakeholders FHS.
Actually no they are neither entitled to input (unless they own some shares in the club) or should their opinions be taken to seriously in the grand scheme of things...
They are emotionally compromised and extremely biased when it comes to the subject, and their input would be completely clouded by that fact, they're also only going to look at it from the point of view of how it effects them and not of how it effects the NRL or the sport as a whole...
Yeah well , the Sharks are really an isolated case ooh really, no other club financially assisted sheesh.Like the Titans,Knights who had to be taken over by the NRL .
Money repaid by the Sharks.In fact they were in the sights of Arthurson to be flicked/relocated..That's why they jumped at SL.to survive, and I attended the meeting when they decided to go,and saw and heard the angst.False equivalency BS.
The money to the Tigers side(my old man's team) yet to be repaid,the money lent to St George so they could pay their players.The financial problems that struck the Cows/Warriors in their formative years. and Souths.Yep nothing to see here.Sharks were unique. J.C had nothing to do with it, according to reports.
Well all that's just blatantly dodging the point that was being made...
