Peter Beatte NRL 360 - expansion

[Perth Red]

Which is repaid with interest by bringing in bigger clubs in the space created by their demise.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

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!

Just because you say it, does not make it true.

Many Sydney clubs have been cut and the game has never been bigger. Even if fans of a deceased cannot move on, their kids do. After a generation, the old club is forgotten and another club has taken over the local loyalties.

 

[Stallion]

Just because you say it, does not make it true.

Many Sydney clubs have been cut and the game has never been bigger. Even if fans of a deceased cannot move on, their kids do. After a generation, the old club is forgotten and another club has taken over the local loyalties.

Perhaps in decades gone by. But not with the record of the tv world. Clubs are not forgotten. Think the competition is lesser for what has happened to it. Losing clubs and therefore fans does poorly impact on an established and well renowned competition. But that's just common sense having a go!

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

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.

Actually, we are in an even worse position now...

Had RL only stagnated in 1995, we would still have a manageable position today. The worst thing of all about the SL War was that it made the clubs the most powerful group in the game. Prior to it, the NSWRL had them divided and the admin were in control.

SL ended that and the clubs have been in control ever since; of course the clubs arent interested in growing the game, it would reduce their own control. I would eve go so far as to say that the reason SuperLeague is so heavily demonized today is because it reenforces the power of the Club bosses.

"there are too many Syndey clubs" > "That is what Super League said"
"we should get out of suburban grounds" > "Super League said that TOO"
"we should stop being so Sydney-centric" > "SUPER LEAGUE!!!!"

Personally, i dont have much hope for the game at club level. I think the saviour of RL will be rep football; it will be Super League (an elite competition above the present comp) by stealth. We can take games anywhere (not just the Sydney Suburbs) and we can add/remove teams at a whim. And thats not even mentioning the end of the mercenary player, when players cant just jump between teams at a moments notice, i think fan loyalty will increase dramatically (Just look at Origin, and more recently Tonga)...

 

[Stallion]

Actually, we are in an even worse position now...

Had RL only stagnated in 1995, we would still have a manageable position today. The worst thing of all about the SL War was that it made the clubs the most powerful group in the game. Prior to it, the NSWRL had them divided and the admin were in control.

SL ended that and the clubs have been in control ever since; of course the clubs arent interested in growing the game, it would reduce their own control. I would eve go so far as to say that the reason SuperLeague is so heavily demonized today is because it reenforces the power of the Club bosses.

"there are too many Syndey clubs" > "That is what Super League said"
"we should get out of suburban grounds" > "Super League said that TOO"
"we should stop being so Sydney-centric" > "SUPER LEAGUE!!!!"

Personally, i dont have much hope for the game at club level. What im hoping is for rep football to make big inroads and lessen the grip of the club (A Super League by stealth)

Agree. (not on your tact for the NRL) However international rugby league is definitely the most likely avenue to grow the code. Unfortunately we have witnessed some dubious and diabolical decisions with respect to the international game in recent times. Still cannot fathom the lack of a KANGAROOS V LIONS test in Australia this year as part of a Great Britain tour. Nonsensical!

 

[tri_colours]

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.

Just out of Curiosity Doc who where the good clubs?

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Agree. (not on your tact for the NRL) However international rugby league is definitely the most likely avenue to grow the code. Unfortunately we have witnessed some dubious and diabolical decisions with respect to the international game in recent times. Still cannot fathom the lack of a KANGAROOS V LIONS test in Australia this year as part of a Great Britain tour. Nonsensical!

Thats what you get when the clubs run the game....

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

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 would have been brilliant!!!

- 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.

A new competition placed above the existing ARL would have been the easiest way to get fans on board ("no club is being relegated, we are just being selective on who we INVITE to our new comp").

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

(continued from above. weird system thing)

- 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".

The ARL thing is just a formal restructuring (like the handover from NSWRL to ARL only a few years earlier). But it would have given a great sense of continuity to the new comp.


- The franchises would be based in Sydney (4), Queensland (2), Newcastle, Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Auckland (1 each).

Starting small with 14 would have allowed us to wait, watch and strategically place new teams as they were demanded later.

I think one thing that was never thought of was the idea of a "clean" Sydney team, not aligned to the old clubs. Rather than just hoping fans jump onboard with teams they previously opposed, we could have given a new option (The Sydney City group form the City-Country clash would have been perfect; long history but no club-level prejudice)

- 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.

Working in partnership instead of opposition would have been amazing for RL. The immediate example i think of is when Adidas/ISL partnered with FIFA. The amount of money FIFA bad on the back of this partnership was astronomical.

- 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.

Very reasonable. Ken would have held his position, Quayle would probably have remained secretary

- Profit distribution between the ARL and News would be negotiable.

So basically the situation we have now.

Yet, thanks to the war, we are now stuck with a stagnant, Sydney-heavy comp dominated by Club-land warloads and saddled with a weakened Commission.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

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

One team (Broncos) replaced 12 (the BRL) in Brisbane, and they are doing fine.

One team (the Knights) replaced the entire Newcastle comp, and the game is doing fine there too.

...... (Raiders)..... doing fine.

.....(cowboys)...... doing fine.

Every actual example of this that we have shows the locals people accepting the big new team in the big new comp. The only evidence that Sydney is different is that YOU SAY it is different.

You right think Sydney cannot unite behind one team? Then why are the NSW Blues so popular?

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Just out of Curiosity Doc who where the good clubs?

- NZ Warriors
- Brisbane Broncos
- Canberra Raiders
- NQLD Cowboys
- Perth Reds
- Newcastle Knights
- Gold Coast Chargers
- SQLD Crushers
- Illawarra Steelers

The NSWRL/ARL spent years building these franchises as the beginning of the national footprint. Yet, thanks to the ARLs insane one-year contracts, 5 of them jumped to SL, 1 (Knights) tried to jump but the ARL signed the the players first and the last two just werent wanted (I dont know if SL wanted the Steelers or not).

Sign all of these clubs up to long term deals and SuperLeague War NEVER HAPPENS. Of the remaining 11 (Sharks, Sea Eagles, Bears, Eels, Panthers, Bulldogs, Roosters, Tigers, Rabbitohs, Dragons, Magpies) tell them that the year 2000 will be the beginning of the new Super League competition. There are 4 spots going (save the 5th for a new Sydney United/Sydney City team) and may the best team win the 4 places on offer (mergers and relocations will be given special consideration).

No one can claim a team was cut, they were only not offered spots in the new comp. The shitty clubs will fade naturally into obscurity and fans will find new loyalties. Meanwhile, if NewsLtd want to create a breakaway comp, they only have the Sydney teams to pick from (so they would have actually HELPED the ARL pick which teams to cut). And if it turns out that one of the SYndey clubs who missed out SHOULD have been included, they can just be offered a promotion to the SL.

ARL had an easy road ahead, but they were too stupid to take it...

 

[Stallion]

One team (Broncos) replaced 12 (the BRL) in Brisbane, and they are doing fine.

One team (the Knights) replaced the entire Newcastle comp, and the game is doing fine there too.

...... (Raiders)..... doing fine.

.....(cowboys)...... doing fine.

Every actual example of this that we have shows the locals people accepting the big new team in the big new comp. The only evidence that Sydney is different is that YOU SAY it is different.

You right think Sydney cannot unite behind one team? Then why are the NSW Blues so popular?

Cultural and historical ties with the well known and universally popular Sydney clubs would have been lost with your "plan" Sounded ok but not practical or realistic.In fact 'disastrous' if you accept a blunt description. History and culture along with top flight status goes hand in hand with the most popular rugby competition on Earth. And you want to carve it up!?

 

[tri_colours]

Just out of Curiosity Doc who where the good clubs?

Those who Drink

- NZ Warriors
- Brisbane Broncos
- Canberra Raiders
- NQLD Cowboys
- Perth Reds
- Newcastle Knights
- Gold Coast Chargers
- SQLD Crushers
- Illawarra Steelers

The NSWRL/ARL spent years building these franchises as the beginning of the national footprint. Yet, thanks to the ARLs insane one-year contracts, 5 of them jumped to SL, 1 (Knights) tried to jump but the ARL signed the the players first and the last two just werent wanted (I dont know if SL wanted the Steelers or not).

Sign all of these clubs up to long term deals and SuperLeague NEVER HAPPENS. Of the remaining 11 (Sharks, Sea Eagles, Bears, Eels, Panthers, Bulldogs, Roosters, Tigers, Rabbitohs, Dragons, Magpies) tell them that the year 2000 will be the beginning of the new Super League competition. There are 4 spots going (save the 5th for a new Sydney United/Sydney City team) and may the best team win the 4 places on offer.

No one can claim a team was cut, they were only not offered spots in the new comp. The shitty clubs will fade naturally into obscurity and fans will find new loyalties. Meanwhile, if NewsLtd want to create a breakaway comp, they only have the Sydney teams to pick from (so they would have actually HELPED the ARL pick with teams to cut). And if it turns out that one of the SYndey clubs who missed out SHOULD have been included, they can just be offered a promotion to the SL.

ARL had an easy road ahead, but they were too stupid to take it...

Long term contract

 

[Perth Red]

- NZ Warriors
- Brisbane Broncos
- Canberra Raiders
- NQLD Cowboys
- Perth Reds
- Newcastle Knights
- Gold Coast Chargers
- SQLD Crushers
- Illawarra Steelers

ARL had an easy road ahead, but they were too stupid to take it...

I'm sure if the ARL had an inkling in the early 90's of what was to come they would have gone down that road of signing the clubs they wanted in their SL to long term contracts and let the Sydney sides fight it out. Hindsight is a wonderful gift! They obviously didnt see it coming so felt that best to keep everyone equal and on one year licenses whilst they got everyone to the point of agreeing criteria for inclusion which they did in 1994. 1995 was first year of criteria meeting but then SL came along. I reckon by '98 they would have got the comp down to the 14 clubs they wanted.

 

[Perth Red]

Cultural and historical ties with the well known and universally popular Sydney clubs would have been lost with your "plan" Sounded ok but not practical or realistic.In fact 'disastrous' if you accept a blunt description. History and culture along with top flight status goes hand in hand with the most popular rugby competition on Earth. And you want to carve it up!?

Is about new fans, the games audience is static and has been for over a decade, probably longer.
it needs new fans. Take a look at BBL and what a rethink of a comp can do for popularity. Those BBL fans werent going to test matches or the state shield games, they are new fans engaged by an exciting product with new one state teams to follow,

 

[tri_colours]

Those who Drink

Those who Drink



Long term contract

Those who Drink



Long term contract

- NZ Warriors
- Brisbane Broncos
- Canberra Raiders
- NQLD Cowboys
- Perth Reds
- Newcastle Knights
- Gold Coast Chargers
- SQLD Crushers
- Illawarra Steelers

The NSWRL/ARL spent years building these franchises as the beginning of the national footprint. Yet, thanks to the ARLs insane one-year contracts, 5 of them jumped to SL, 1 (Knights) tried to jump but the ARL signed the the players first and the last two just werent wanted (I dont know if SL wanted the Steelers or not).

Sign all of these clubs up to long term deals and SuperLeague War NEVER HAPPENS. Of the remaining 11 (Sharks, Sea Eagles, Bears, Eels, Panthers, Bulldogs, Roosters, Tigers, Rabbitohs, Dragons, Magpies) tell them that the year 2000 will be the beginning of the new Super League competition. There are 4 spots going (save the 5th for a new Sydney United/Sydney City team) and may the best team win the 4 places on offer (mergers and relocations will be given special consideration).

No one can claim a team was cut, they were only not offered spots in the new comp. The shitty clubs will fade naturally into obscurity and fans will find new loyalties. Meanwhile, if NewsLtd want to create a breakaway comp, they only have the Sydney teams to pick from (so they would have actually HELPED the ARL pick which teams to cut). And if it turns out that one of the SYndey clubs who missed out SHOULD have been included, they can just be offered a promotion to the SL.

ARL had an easy road ahead, but they were too stupid to take it...

Your missing the obvious here Doc. If the game had no supporters than the Super League would never of happened – interest level zero – no takeover. Almost all the clubs you named did nothing for ten years, or would have. So if you alienate the other half of your fan base(the vast majority),

What level of support do feeder/ reserve grade clubs get. who’s going to want to have anything to with the game? When there supporter numbers are lower than that of the A League???What sponsor’s , media barons or any other outside influence ‘s are going to want to have anything to do with our game?

This is a backwards scenario, And your trying to make out the ARL were incompetent.


Loyalty agreements were a two way Street. They didn’t only give the ARL security they would also give the clubs security.

And when they did try that all clubs agreed, committed to the ARL for 5years but teams of News LTD lawyers, who specialised in breaking contracts, Had no trouble in getting them overturned.

 

[Stallion]

I'm sure if the ARL had an inkling in the early 90's of what was to come they would have gone down that road of signing the clubs they wanted in their SL to long term contracts and let the Sydney sides fight it out. Hindsight is a wonderful gift! They obviously didnt see it coming so felt that best to keep everyone equal and on one year licenses whilst they got everyone to the point of agreeing criteria for inclusion which they did in 1994. 1995 was first year of criteria meeting but then SL came along. I reckon by '98 they would have got the comp down to the 14 clubs they wanted.

What comp? You would have lost the public by that stage! It's pretty simple : If you take something that is culturally the norm and familiar (well established) you lose the cultural significance and supporter loyalty . So if you do so , the public at large will protest and go elsewhere. You don't just flick a switch and expect neutrals and loyal fans to suddenly accept a fanciful restructure causing the loss of things like colours,name,locality and longevity within a club supporter base?! Hope you can see the damage that would occur. Sydney clubs are very parochial and they have been the shining light for rugby league to expand. If they go, just the same as if you did this in the AFL, mass resentment occurs. This sort of thing loses loyalty in established fan bases. THAT MATTERS!

 

[Stallion]

Is about new fans, the games audience is static and has been for over a decade, probably longer.
it needs new fans. Take a look at BBL and what a rethink of a comp can do for popularity. Those BBL fans werent going to test matches or the state shield games, they are new fans engaged by an exciting product with new one state teams to follow,

Very different! And I note the Bbl crowds are not as good as last year btw! We are talking rugby league! A very vulnerable sport. Your core popular competition, (*NRL) if seen to be flailing and falling apart with moves to eliminate, merge etc,does not send a positive message to a neutral watching on. They ask :"Why is this sport losing its clubs!, " The established clubs are the golden egg! That's why Newcastle so passionately wanted to join the Big League. The people loved this competition and wanted to be a part of it. If you dismember it you also lose face and credibility in the eyes of neutrals and ofcourse established fan bases.

 

[tri_colours]

One team (Broncos) replaced 12 (the BRL) in Brisbane, and they are doing fine.

One team (the Knights) replaced the entire Newcastle comp, and the game is doing fine there too.

...... (Raiders)..... doing fine.

.....(cowboys)...... doing fine.

Every actual example of this that we have shows the locals people accepting the big new team in the big new comp. The only evidence that Sydney is different is that YOU SAY it is different.

You right think Sydney cannot unite behind one team? Then why are the NSW Blues so popular?

The Newcastle comp is a shell of what it once was even 30 years on.