NRL need to organise the pre season

[100%green]

As mentioned before, the NRL raises to the clubs every year over bringing back a pre-season tournament, but every year the clubs vote against it.

Most clubs now want to make their trials profitable events, hence playing them in the city rather than the bush. The NRL trys to get around this with the Community Carnival, so at least forcing clubs to head to rural areas, but that was put on hold this year due to all the Centenary events happening.

So yeah, if you want a pre-season tournament to return, pressure your club to say they want it.

I had no idea about that.

I support a return of a pre season comp and the Sevens!

 

[Perth Red]

We got close to 12,000 for a pre season game in Perth a few years back. The NRL should be funding travel costs of clubs and using the pre season games as ways of promoting the sport in new and country areas.

 

[jamesgould]

It has nothing to do with the NRL being on auto-pilot. The clubs and especially their football departments don't want a organised competitive pre-season competition. They do not consider a competition that requires them to play games to actually try and win as the best preparation for round 1 of a 26 round marathon.

This can't be true for all clubs. Sure, if some of them don't want to put out their best side then fair enough. But that just gives some of the lesser teams a chance of achieving something, which can't be bad!?!? How good was Souths winning the Toohey's Cup in 1994?

 

[Chachi]

Not a good idea IMO (unless you're a Cronulla supporter who wants 2 chances a year to win something).

Problem is you get 2 clubs locked into 4 pre-season games if they make the final and then 8 clubs who get knocked out in the first round, who then have to muck around arranging other pre-season games at the last minute.

Might be nice for the fans, but it would be sh*t for the clubs IMO. 2 or 3 pre-season games per team is ideal.

 

[The Engineers Room]

Have the teams in pools of 4, round robin.

Then the 4 best team on points and F/A play at a fan day the week before the first round at ANZ. Group Souths with St George so they can still have their Charity Shield game.

Have 16 NRL/NYC teams + 8 invited teams.

Play the trials with unlimited interchange and have a minimum number of NYC eligible players on the field at all times. So say each team must have atleast say 6 NYC players on at all times.

There would be 3 weeks of footy for each club as warm ups.

The event at ANZ could be run like this

Game 1 first half: 1v4 @ 2:00pm
Game 2 first half: 2v3 @ 3:00pm
Game 2 second half: 2v3 @ 4:00pm
Game 1 second half: 1v4 @ 5:00pm

Fan day events, entertainment etc and have all the NRL teams attend

Final @ 7:30pm

Pools could be structured like this:

Pool 1
Eels
Roosters
Tigers
JB Cup 1

Pool 2
Broncos
Cowboys
Titans
Qld Cup1

Pool 3
Rabbitiohs
Dragons
Sea Eagles
Combined SA

Pool 4
Storm
Warriors
Auckland Vulcans
WA Reds

Pool 5
Knights
Raiders
NSW Country
Qld Cup2

Pool 6
Panthers
Bulldogs
Sharks
JB Cup 2

 

[jamesgould]

Not a good idea IMO (unless you're a Cronulla supporter who wants 2 chances a year to win something).

Problem is you get 2 clubs locked into 4 pre-season games if they make the final and then 8 clubs who get knocked out in the first round, who then have to muck around arranging other pre-season games at the last minute.

Might be nice for the fans, but it would be sh*t for the clubs IMO. 2 or 3 pre-season games per team is ideal.

They could easily pre arrange venues and times for the knocked out teams to play. The only thing they wouldn't be sure of is which sides would be playing.

Most teams have played three trials this year, you're telling me that they wouldn't want to play one more if there was a pre-season comp with prize money on the line?

 

[Quidgybo]

Most teams have played three trials this year, you're telling me that they wouldn't want to play one more if there was a pre-season comp with prize money on the line?

That's exactly what I'm telling you. A couple hundred thousand dollars doesn't mean anything if playing four tough competitive games instead of one competitive game and one or two light hitouts equals a bad start to the premiership and running out of puff in the race for the finals. The clubs don't want three or four competitive games in the pre-season. If they did they'd already be playing them, with or without a prize. But they're not playing them. Not a single club.

Leigh.

 

[nqboy]

That's exactly what I'm telling you. A couple hundred thousand dollars doesn't mean anything if playing four tough competitive games instead of one competitive game and one or two light hitouts equals a bad start to the premiership and running out of puff in the race for the finals. The clubs don't want three or four competitive games in the pre-season. If they did they'd already be playing them, with or without a prize. But they're not playing them. Not a single club.

Leigh.

You're on the money Quidg and one of the biggest porblems I see is that most teams certainly don't want 3, 4, 5 trials. There is a huge difference between playing that many trials in AFL, a contact sport, and playing them in RL, a collision sport.

But to me, that doesn't mean you can't put money and a title up for grabs. The clubs can then decide whether they want to take it seriously. Either way, country fans will be glad to watch it, even if it is watered down in playing strength.

As someone else said, that fairytale element of one of the battlers winning the Country Carnival would be good publicity for the game.

 

[camsmith]

Not a good idea, many AFL supporters think the preseason comp is a waste of time and want it like the NRL. More game = more chance of injuries and the longer we have to wait for the real stuff.

 

[griff]

As mentioned before, the NRL raises to the clubs every year over bringing back a pre-season tournament, but every year the clubs vote against it.

Most clubs now want to make their trials profitable events, hence playing them in the city rather than the bush. The NRL trys to get around this with the Community Carnival, so at least forcing clubs to head to rural areas, but that was put on hold this year due to all the Centenary events happening.

So yeah, if you want a pre-season tournament to return, pressure your club to say they want it.

The NRL shouldn't be asking the clubs, they should be telling them. If we had our current club bosses in 1895 we would still be playing union.

In AFL the clubs would prefer trials rather than a pre-season competition. But the AFL has cojones and tells them what is best for the game as a whole.

NRL loses out big time on exposure at this time in the year. If we had a pre-season comp the coverage alone is worth millions of dollars of free media for the game. The NRL also loses out on additional sponsorship income.

An unlimited interchange bench of say 8 would allow coaches to give players a run if they wanted. Even if there was a pre-season comp, teams could play second stringers if they liked. But clubs are always whinging about lack of money so dangle a few hundred thousand in front of them and they would be all over a pre-season comp.

 

[yakstorm]

The NRL shouldn't be asking the clubs, they should be telling them. If we had our current club bosses in 1895 we would still be playing union.

Well way back in 1895 it was the clubs who lead the decision to switch to Union, and it was the clubs who lead the way with the rule changes. So really things haven't changed much have they? The clubs still rule the way.

In AFL the clubs would prefer trials rather than a pre-season competition. But the AFL has cojones and tells them what is best for the game as a whole.

Yes, but as you're well aware griff, the AFL clubs handed over a significant amount of power to the Commission back in the 1980's when the League almost went into bankrupcy. For the AFL to put together a pre-season competition they only need 5 clubs to vote with them, if that was the case in the NRL, we would have a pre-season competition.

NRL loses out big time on exposure at this time in the year. If we had a pre-season comp the coverage alone is worth millions of dollars of free media for the game. The NRL also loses out on additional sponsorship income.

Potentially yes, but unless it was an all in scenario, it could also be an expensive measure. The NAB Cup is not a profit making competition for the AFL, naturally though the AFL use it for exposure, and don't get me wrong, I'm for a pre-season competition, but you have to understand the reasons against it.

An unlimited interchange bench of say 8 would allow coaches to give players a run if they wanted. Even if there was a pre-season comp, teams could play second stringers if they liked. But clubs are always whinging about lack of money so dangle a few hundred thousand in front of them and they would be all over a pre-season comp.

Good suggestions, but yeah, its not so black and white...

 

[strewth_mate]

Regardless of whether they actually do anything in the preseason in terms of competitions or trial publicity, it surely wouldn't hurt to advertise the game.

Like, with ads?

 

[Perth Red]

Wash your mouth out! RL spending good money on advertising? You must be kidding!

 

[strewth_mate]

Even spending crap money on advertising would be a start...

 

[griff]

Yes, but as you're well aware griff, the AFL clubs handed over a significant amount of power to the Commission back in the 1980's when the League almost went into bankrupcy. For the AFL to put together a pre-season competition they only need 5 clubs to vote with them, if that was the case in the NRL, we would have a pre-season competition.

Potentially yes, but unless it was an all in scenario, it could also be an expensive measure. The NAB Cup is not a profit making competition for the AFL, naturally though the AFL use it for exposure, and don't get me wrong, I'm for a pre-season competition, but you have to understand the reasons against it.

Yeah I see the reasons against it, I just don't think they are valid. I can see why individual clubs wouldn't be in favour, but like with the AFL, it shouldn't be up to the clubs. The clubs are only interested in looking out for themselves, but the NRL is (or should be) looking out for the competition as a whole and the game of rugby league football more broadly.

I don't think technically there has to be a vote of the NRL clubs either for the NRL to move ahead on anything. If they wanted to they could organise a pre-season competition and direct the clubs to participate in it.

We need some leadership on these sort of issues from the NRL, given the lack of vision of the clubs.