Peter Beatte NRL 360 - expansion

[Stallion]

Wrong forum mate, you want to be in the international one!

Can you give a reference to your claim about what Arthurson has allegedly said post his pushing for Sydney rationalisation in the late 80's?

I recall the interview with Sterlo on FOX League . Suppose you can search it up. I distinctly remember it. Arko stated: 'The whole idea of getting rid of established Sydney clubs was not going to work. It would destroy the supporter bases. It was a mistake! '

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I recall the interview with Sterlo on FOX League . Suppose you can search it up. I distinctly remember it. Arko stated: 'The whole idea of getting rid of established Sydney clubs was not going to work. It would destroy the supporter bases. It was a mistake! '

Sounds like youre making shit up

Again

 

[Stallion]

Sounds like youre making shit up

Again

Sterlo absolutely hosted a magazine style interview show on Fox Rugby league. Ken Arthurs on was interviewed by Sterlo . This was his response about the carving up of the Sydney clubs. A MISTAKE!

 

[tri_colours]

d

 

[tri_colours]

This really undercuts your point about the tv rights. NewsLtd has drunk RL dry, its RLs time to cut NewsLtd out of go direct to the consumer with NRL.com and WatchNRL.



Yeh, my point is that the ARL were shockingly incompetent. This is more evidence....



ARL did nothing to secure the clubs to longer competition contracts, nothing to sign the players centrally to the ARL and nothing to satisfy the multi-billion dollar company that wanted a slice of the game.

Doing any one of these 3 things would have stopped SL before it began. It takes an especially stupid bunch of guys to successfully alienate all 3 groups at once.

Its like the were begging for SL to happen...



The Broncos singlehandedly took all of the wealth of the BRL and redirected it into the NSWRL coffers. Of course, they felt entitled, they were nearly as valuable to the NSWRL as all of the Sydney clubs combined.

But the NSWRL just would not accept that the centre of power had changed. It would not have been a hard situation to balance, but lets say it together; the ARL people were f*cking stupid. They could have split the Brisbane power with a few more teams (thats how they dominated the Sydney market, keeping the clubs squabbling among themselves) or they could have invited Brisbane reps onto the NSWRL/ARL board to begin a proper power-sharing agreement

I certainly don’t see it that way at all . When the ARL sold the the TV rights for a record price they were doing what was in the best interest of the game . When they introduced 7 new clubs they were doing did what they considered was in the best interests of the game . When they signed Tina Turner to to promote the game played matches in Melbourne and the US. Or continued with traditions like Kangaroo tours, infact every thing they did was, in there view – in the best interest of the game. and usually was. That can’t be said for the likes of Murdoch and Packer though, who have there own self interest at heart.

Crowds were at record levels, ratings (both TV & radio) were at record levels, The grass roots got large annual grants . Club payments were at record levels ...............so how was it that they were so shockingly incompetant ???????????????



The NRL would not, and had every right not to expected such a ruthless and greedy hostile takeover of the game.

But let’s not forget the majority of clubs stayed loyal to the ARL despite a constant bombardment of lies, half truths and propaganda, as well as relentless fear campaign waged in the News Limited media each day.


Well that’s your opinion, its certainly not mine. They were one of many consortium that were granted access into the NSWRL . They were well aware of the rules that they were expected to abide by, but constantly tried to flaunt them, This is not a Qld thing , as I don’t recall any problem with the gold Coast or any other of the clubs that came into the competiton ... more to do with the management of the club and the concept of sharing.


There was already a second team in Qld. And when they put a second team in Brisbane is when Ribot first started making his weekly reports to News Ltd’s


And there was already Qld representatives on the ARL board including Ribot at one stage.

 

[Stallion]

I certainly don’t see it that way at all . When the ARL sold the the TV rights for a record price they were doing what was in the best interest of the game . When they introduced 7 new clubs they were doing did what they considered was in the best interests of the game . When they signed Tina Turner to to promote the game played matches in Melbourne and the US. Or continued with traditions like Kangaroo tours, infact every thing they did was, in there view – in the best interest of the game. and usually was. That can’t be said for the likes of Murdoch and Packer though, who have there own self interest at heart.

Crowds were at record levels, ratings (both TV & radio) were at record levels, The grass roots got large annual grants . Club payments were at record levels ...............so how was it that they were so shockingly incompetant ???????????????



The NRL would not, and had every right not to expected such a ruthless and greedy hostile takeover of the game.

But let’s not forget the majority of clubs stayed loyal to the ARL despite a constant bombardment of lies, half truths and propaganda, as well as relentless fear campaign waged in the News Limited media each day.


Well that’s your opinion, its certainly not mine. They were one of many consortium that were granted access into the NSWRL . They were well aware of the rules that they were expected to abide by, but constantly tried to flaunt them, This is not a Qld thing , as I don’t recall any problem with the gold Coast or any other of the clubs that came into the competiton ... more to do with the management of the club and the concept of sharing.


There was already a second team in Qld. And when they put a second team in Brisbane is when Ribot first started making his weekly reports to News Ltd’s


And there was already Qld representatives on the ARL board including Ribot at one stage.

Spot on Tri colours. Well articulated!

 

[Perth Red]

Sterlo absolutely hosted a magazine style interview show on Fox Rugby league. Ken Arthurs on was interviewed by Sterlo . This was his response about the carving up of the Sydney clubs. A MISTAKE!

Given his close ties to Manly I am not surprised at all that he wants to see the status quo of small suburban clubs maintained. Maybe it was the rest of the NSWRL/ ARL board that commissioned the Bradley Report and were planning to act on it before SL got in the way? Having said that he seemed a pretty committed rationalist in his day when he said:

"Ken Arthurson has proposed a Super League... comprising four or five teams from Sydney, two from Brisbane, three New South Wales Country teams, Queensland Country and Auckland. You could amalgamate Manly/Northern Suburbs, Eastern Suburbs/Souths, Parramatta/Penrith and so on."

One of the things that allowed SL to happen was the clubs only being signed to one year contracts to the league. There is suggestion this was in place as the ARL had plans to drop clubs down and therefore couldn't be held to account if they had longer licenses. This was alongside criteria for licenses introduced in 1995 that made it very difficult for some Sydney clubs to continue in the top tier. They were clearly positioning to cull.

It has been known for 30 years that Sydney really cant sustain a large number of clubs in a national competition. That rationalisation has been happening sporadicaly for a long term and there is no doubt it will happen again at some point in the future.

From the NSWRL commissioned Bradley Report
1992: "...to reduce the number of clubs in Sydney, will be very hard for the League to implement given the long playing traditions of some of those clubs. In the long term, however, it is likely that Sydney is not going to be able to support eleven clubs as it does at present. Therefore in the long term this is the only viable solution. Sydney based clubs are going to have to move to new areas, merge or be relegated from the League. This is going to be a painful process. In the long term I believe that the ARL should be looking to reduce the number of clubs in the National Competition to fourteen, thus allowing clubs to play two complete rounds. This will mean, assuming that only four new clubs are admitted from areas outside Sydney, that there will be only five clubs based in Sydney."

This was reiterated by Manly themselves during the SL pre war period when in 1995 they sent a letter to the ARL:

At least one loyal club took the view that Super League, perhaps in an altered version, was not out of the question. In a letter dated 16 February 1995, Mr Hudson, the chairman of the board of Manly-Warringah, wrote to Mr Quayle: "there are great advantages for News Limited in getting their current proposal, or some version of it, finally accepted. Hence, we feel that the proposition is not 'dead and buried' and that attempts to de-stabilise the competition will continue. There is a vulnerability in this which News Limited have identified. Their twelve (12) team competition has just four (4) teams in Sydney. They can see that a Sydney club can only survive with great difficulty financially and logistically, against the competition provided by one city clubs, and now (for Brisbane) a two (2) club city. If the situation of the eleven (11) teams in Sydney is not addressed in some way by the League, the threat of a take-over, or such like, will continue to loom large. We suggest that a plan to address the problems of the eleven (11) Sydney clubs vis-a-vis their colleagues in other cities and in other states is urgently needed." The letter went on to request that the question of the Sydney clubs be considered by the Premiership Policy Committee on an urgent basis.

The committee did consider the letter at its meeting of 14 March 1995. The meeting (at which John Quayle was present) unanimously agreed that the "future structure of the Winfield Cup competition should contain fewer Sydney clubs". The committee also expressed the view that "the Board should convene as soon as possible to demonstrate leadership on the issue of fewer Sydney clubs".[citation needed]

The Premiership Policy Committee decided to push forward with a plan to reduce the number of Sydney teams before any player, coach or club had moved to Super League. The ARL had handed out loyalty agreements for the clubs to sign, then immediately went about a plan to get rid of clubs.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_League_war#Bradley_Report

 

[Perth Red]

I certainly don’t see it that way at all . When the ARL sold the the TV rights for a record price they were doing what was in the best interest of the game . When they introduced 7 new clubs they were doing did what they considered was in the best interests of the game . When they signed Tina Turner to to promote the game played matches in Melbourne and the US. Or continued with traditions like Kangaroo tours, infact every thing they did was, in there view – in the best interest of the game. and usually was. That can’t be said for the likes of Murdoch and Packer though, who have there own self interest at heart.

Crowds were at record levels, ratings (both TV & radio) were at record levels, The grass roots got large annual grants . Club payments were at record levels ...............so how was it that they were so shockingly incompetant ???????????????



The NRL would not, and had every right not to expected such a ruthless and greedy hostile takeover of the game.

But let’s not forget the majority of clubs stayed loyal to the ARL despite a constant bombardment of lies, half truths and propaganda, as well as relentless fear campaign waged in the News Limited media each day.


Well that’s your opinion, its certainly not mine. They were one of many consortium that were granted access into the NSWRL . They were well aware of the rules that they were expected to abide by, but constantly tried to flaunt them, This is not a Qld thing , as I don’t recall any problem with the gold Coast or any other of the clubs that came into the competiton ... more to do with the management of the club and the concept of sharing.


There was already a second team in Qld. And when they put a second team in Brisbane is when Ribot first started making his weekly reports to News Ltd’s


And there was already Qld representatives on the ARL board including Ribot at one stage.

What was interesting about the original SL proposal put to the ARL was that there would continue to be a 20 club second tier comp and a new 12 club national top tier comp would be created with the 20 existing clubs owning shares in the 12 SL clubs. That would have been a really interesting scenario to have tested out.

This was that proposal which sounds not unreasonable if you were willing to radically shake up the game.

1. There would be a 12 team competition that would be an integral part of an international competition, with a worldwide audience of tens or even hundreds of millions.
2. The existing 20 team competition would continue, along with the ARL's "pivotal role" in administering the game. The ARL would run the State competition and Test matches, and be responsible for the judiciary, referees and junior development. The existing 20 clubs would be shareholders in the licensed, privately owned Super League teams, thus eliminating any breach of players' contracts. The 20-club competition would be the "breeding ground for the stars of the future".
3. The franchises would be based in Sydney (4), Queensland (2), Newcastle, Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Auckland (1 each).
4. The current financial status of the game was a net loss. The Super League proposal would allow the clubs to benefit from News' global media network, and make it possible for $100m to be invested in rugby league.
5. There would be a "fully representative Board of Directors", with three franchise board members and the ARL represented. The chairman of the ARL would be the chairman of Super League.
6. Profit distribution between the ARL and News would be negotiable.

Wiki's still go the best account of how it all played out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_League_war#Bradley_Report

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Sterlo absolutely hosted a magazine style interview show on Fox Rugby league. Ken Arthurs on was interviewed by Sterlo . This was his response about the carving up of the Sydney clubs. A MISTAKE!

Buuuuuuullshit...

 

[Stallion]

Given his close ties to Manly I am not surprised at all that he wants to see the status quo of small suburban clubs maintained. Maybe it was the rest of the NSWRL/ ARL board that commissioned the Bradley Report and were planning to act on it before SL got in the way? Having said that he seemed a pretty committed rationalist in his day when he said:



One of the things that allowed SL to happen was the clubs only being signed to one year contracts to the league. There is suggestion this was in place as the ARL had plans to drop clubs down and therefore couldn't be held to account if they had longer licenses. This was alongside criteria for licenses introduced in 1995 that made it very difficult for some Sydney clubs to continue in the top tier. They were clearly positioning to cull.

It has been known for 30 years that Sydney really cant sustain a large number of clubs in a national competition. That rationalisation has been happening sporadicaly for a long term and there is no doubt it will happen again at some point in the future.

From the NSWRL commissioned Bradley Report
1992: "...to reduce the number of clubs in Sydney, will be very hard for the League to implement given the long playing traditions of some of those clubs. In the long term, however, it is likely that Sydney is not going to be able to support eleven clubs as it does at present. Therefore in the long term this is the only viable solution. Sydney based clubs are going to have to move to new areas, merge or be relegated from the League. This is going to be a painful process. In the long term I believe that the ARL should be looking to reduce the number of clubs in the National Competition to fourteen, thus allowing clubs to play two complete rounds. This will mean, assuming that only four new clubs are admitted from areas outside Sydney, that there will be only five clubs based in Sydney."

This was reiterated by Manly themselves during the SL pre war period when in 1995 they sent a letter to the ARL:


The committee did consider the letter at its meeting of 14 March 1995. The meeting (at which John Quayle was present) unanimously agreed that the "future structure of the Winfield Cup competition should contain fewer Sydney clubs". The committee also expressed the view that "the Board should convene as soon as possible to demonstrate leadership on the issue of fewer Sydney clubs".[citation needed]

The Premiership Policy Committee decided to push forward with a plan to reduce the number of Sydney teams before any player, coach or club had moved to Super League. The ARL had handed out loyalty agreements for the clubs to sign, then immediately went about a plan to get rid of clubs.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_League_war#Bradley_Report

My opinion is that report was wrong. The whole substance of it ignored existing cultural and fan supporter bases. Wonder what company did that and whom was behind such a drastic and damaging plan? That's stuff is diabolical fir the most memorable popular and renowned rugby competition on earth. A quick means of destroying it I suggest
Arko did concede that the logic was wrong. He admitted that too many fans would be lost and so many memories and passions dissolved.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I certainly don’t see it that way at all . When the ARL sold the the TV rights for a record price they were doing what was in the best interest of the game . When they introduced 7 new clubs they were doing did what they considered was in the best interests of the game . When they signed Tina Turner to to promote the game played matches in Melbourne and the US. Or continued with traditions like Kangaroo tours, infact every thing they did was, in there view – in the best interest of the game. and usually was. That can’t be said for the likes of Murdoch and Packer though, who have there own self interest at heart.

the NSWRL/ARL definitely had the games best interest at heart (so long as it meant them still being in charge). I think they had a great vision for the game and they were in a prime position to execute.

But good intentions dont equal good results. They did nothing to secure ARLs position, they were so focused on growth into new fronteers that they didnt secure their base and it was stollen from under them.

As for Murdoch/Packer, they didnt have "good" intention, but find me a single sponsor who DOES. Any business that puts money into the game only does it to get more out later, whether that is a jersey sponsor or a TV exec.

Crowds were at record levels, ratings (both TV & radio) were at record levels, The grass roots got large annual grants . Club payments were at record levels ...............so how was it that they were so shockingly incompetant ???????????????

The NRL would not, and had every right not to expected such a ruthless and greedy hostile takeover of the game.

You are right that RL was an absolute goldmine of a sport, but that is exactly why that SHOULD have expected a ruthless and greedy hostile takeover. "Right" has nothing to do with it...

But let’s not forget the majority of clubs stayed loyal to the ARL despite a constant bombardment of lies, half truths and propaganda, as well as relentless fear campaign waged in the News Limited media each day.

Actually, it was mostly the reject clubs who stayed loyal. All of the big expansion teams wanted out. SL took the cream and ARL mostly took the dregs.

This was the HUGE f*ckup by the ARL. They wanted the shitty Sydney teams to naturally die (that was why the only signed them to 1-year agreements), why they ever thought they should do the same with the valuable expansion clubs is beyond logic.

If the ARL had signed all of the big clubs to long term contracts and told the small teams "there are 7 of you and 3 spots open for the 2000 season. good luck", SL could never have happened.

(The ARL actually acknowledged their f*ck up when they tried to have clubs sign long deals after SL had begun, but by then it was too late)

Well that’s your opinion, its certainly not mine. They were one of many consortium that were granted access into the NSWRL . They were well aware of the rules that they were expected to abide by, but constantly tried to flaunt them, This is not a Qld thing , as I don’t recall any problem with the gold Coast or any other of the clubs that came into the competiton ... more to do with the management of the club and the concept of sharing.

There was already a second team in Qld. And when they put a second team in Brisbane is when Ribot first started making his weekly reports to News Ltd’s

And there was already Qld representatives on the ARL board including Ribot at one stage.

As i said, power doesnt just flow down. The ARL couldnt just declare the law and expect the Broncos to abide. The centre of power shifted when the Broncos were born and they were flexing their muscles.

And again, none of this would have mattered if the ARL had just made the good clubs sign long term contracts. It wouldnt have mattered what tantrums the Broncos threw, they would have been struck with the ARL and it would have been impossible to braing any other teams with them in rebellion.

 

[Stallion]

the NSWRL/ARL definitely had the games best interest at heart (so long as it meant them still being in charge). I think they had a great vision for the game and they were in a prime position to execute.

But good intentions dont equal good results. They did nothing to secure ARLs position, they were so focused on growth into new fronteers that they didnt secure their base and it was stollen from under them.

As for Murdoch/Packer, they didnt have "good" intention, but find me a single sponsor who DOES. Any business that puts money into the game only does it to get more out later, whether that is a jersey sponsor or a TV exec.



You are right that RL was an absolute goldmine of a sport, but that is exactly why that SHOULD have expected a ruthless and greedy hostile takeover. "Right" has nothing to do with it...



Actually, it was mostly the reject clubs who stayed loyal. All of the big expansion teams wanted out. SL took the cream and ARL mostly took the dregs.

This was the HUGE f*ckup by the ARL. They wanted the shitty Sydney teams to naturally die (that was why the only signed them to 1-year agreements), why they ever thought they should do the same with the valuable expansion clubs is beyond logic.

If the ARL had signed all of the big clubs to long term contracts and told the small teams "there are 7 of you and 3 spots open for the 2000 season. good luck", SL could never have happened.

(The ARL actually acknowledged their f*ck up when they tried to have clubs sign long deals after SL had begun, but by then it was too late)




As i said, power doesnt just flow down. The ARL couldnt just declare the law and expect the Broncos to abide. The centre of power shifted when the Broncos were born and they were flexing their muscles.

And again, none of this would have mattered if the ARL had just made the good clubs sign long term contracts. It wouldnt have mattered what tantrums the Broncos threw, they would have been struck with the ARL and it would have been impossible to braing any other teams with them in rebellion.

One flaw in this summation. The pearl in the oyster was and still is the very well known and supported Sydney based clubs. The logic of mergering/cutting clubs was fraught with disaster and genuinely scurilous from a cultural and fan*customer' perspective. Whomever planted these seeds of destruction were not doing it for rugby league's benefit that's for sure!

 

[Perth Red]

My opinion is that report was wrong. The whole substance of it ignored existing cultural and fan supporter bases. Wonder what company did that and whom was behind such a drastic and damaging plan? That's stuff is diabolical fir the most memorable popular and renowned rugby competition on earth. A quick means of destroying it I suggest
Arko did concede that the logic was wrong. He admitted that too many fans would be lost and so many memories and passions dissolved.

The NSWRL, even the clubs understood the need for radical change as you can see in Manly's comments in 1995. Given the Bradbury report was commissioned by the game and the game was pushing forward with its recommendations why do you honestly believe that the leaders of the NSWRL and ARL had anything other than the games best interests at heart? The goal back then was for a truly national Comp with large one city teams, Everyone could see the eleven sydney teams were never all going to survive and would hold the game back unless change happened. And guess what largely they were right. We still dont have teams in cities we should have.

 

[Stallion]

The NSWRL, even the clubs understood the need for radical change as you can see in Manly's comments in 1995. Given the Bradbury report was commissioned by the game and the game was pushing forward with its recommendations why do you honestly believe that the leaders of the NSWRL and ARL had anything other than the games best interests at heart? The goal back then was for a truly national Comp with large one city teams, Everyone could see the eleven sydney teams were never all going to survive and would hold the game back unless change happened. And guess what largely they were right. We still dont have teams in cities we should have.

Nope! The ultimate test would be Public acceptance. A carving up of well known and established Sydney clubs would have expedited the demise of rugby league in Australia. Quite simply the Sydney clubs were the high profile face and relevance of rugby league. They had credibility,longevity and universal recognition amongst Australians. You lose that you lose the lot! The reports were flawed and in Arko reflective eyes ; "A BIg Mistake"!

 

[Perth Red]

I think I'll go with the opinions of the games leaders who were in a very strong position to know what was happening and had a vision for where the game should be going, and remember they had very vested interests to bury the Bradbury report rather than act on it, over yours. There are still clubs on drip feeds, IF the game ever meets its potential and gets big city popular clubs they will eventually get their life support turned off. Despite a massive freebie grant increase there are still half the clubs allegedly making losses. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Reality is losing 3 Sydney clubs would not kill the game, wouldnt irreparably damage the game and as long as done strategically and replaced by bigger opportunities would see the game in a stronger place in 20 years, as it would have been by now if SL hadn't happened and the NSWRL/ARL had continued down the road it was on in 1994.
Sucks for the fans but that's professional sport for you.

 

[Stallion]

I think I'll go with the opinions of the games leaders who were in a very strong position to know what was happening and had a vision for where the game should be going, and remember they had very vested interests to bury the Bradbury report rather than act on it, over yours. There are still clubs on drip feeds, IF the game ever meets its potential and gets big city popular clubs they will eventually get their life support turned off. Despite a massive freebie grant increase there are still half the clubs allegedly making losses.
Sucks for the fans but that's professional sport for you.

Lol. You lose any of those clubs you also lose the fans! Go figure.?!Blind logic at its damaging best.

 

[Perth Red]

Lol. You lose any of those clubs you also lose the fans! Go figure.?!Blind logic at its damaging best.

You're welcome to your opinion.

 

[Stallion]

You're welcome to your opinion.

Thanks PR. And am sticking with it! For me it's common sense and prudent business from a cultural and relevance sense. These factors go from a very successful and well known competition and it falls like a deck of cards with no back up. Just disaster with no substance as the substancw (cultural support) is gone.

 

[Perth Red]

Newtown
Bears
Tigers
Wests
St's
Steelers
Reds
Crushers
Rams
Northern eagles
Mariners

All have fallen by the way side in recent decades as stand alone top tier clubs, and the game goes on. Some things simply cant be destroyed, no sport is as resilient as RL!

 

[Stallion]

Newtown
Bears
Tigers
Wests
St's
Steelers
Reds
Crushers
Rams
Northern eagles
Mariners

All have fallen by the way side in recent decades as stand alone top tier clubs, and the game goes on. Some things simply cant be destroyed, no sport is as resilient as RL!

Agree most fans are resilient. However the ones that have abandoned the code are not. These are significant in number I suspect. Diluting/mergering such clubs comes at a cost.