I am confused what is the Chairman's role V the role of the CEO of the NRL???
In a nutshell, the CEO runs the National Rugby League and reports to the ARLC who headed by the Chairman. If the Commission are not happy with the CEO performance they can replace him.
In a good organisation, the Commission will have little to no direct input into the day to day operations.
Yes, around $80 million has been spent keeping the Storm alive but they are probably the leading rugby league club of this century. “Wasted” according to V’landys – or am I missing something?
20 odd years, 80 million dollars, three average players produced who all qualify for Island nations. It is effectively Brisbane2 playing from Melbourne.
I do not want Melbourne to go and think Perth should be added, but lets not miss this fact, they still produce no players from an entrie state.
I am confused what is the Chairman's role V the role of the CEO of the NRL???
I have been going on about this for years and all I get is idiot responses. The facts are, they haven't produced any high end NRL quality players after more then 2 decades and around $100m investment other then 3 Islanders. This I believe is a major fail by any measurement.
I
I do think it took them many years to get the pathways correct, much better shape now. NSW juniors they play, QLD seniors, then NRL. Took a long time and the will scout and/steal Qlders unwanted, but good enough.
The get decent crowds, why do none the kids I saw, showing up in by the thousands 10 years not made it?
The facts are, they haven't produced any high end NRL quality players
I hope thing change soon, or I feel the Storm will become an average team or cellar dweller once Smith retires. They need to be able to shore up their team with home grown juniors to complement their better players and then have the occasional star that comes from there so as the Victorian public can then look at and feel pride and loyalty towards that imports can never match.
Well, they have, dozens in fact, but Smith, Cronk, Inglis, Slater were pretty handy footballers in particular.
The idea that funding a bunch of junior football teams coached by someones dad is professional player development is utter nonsense. The Storm's success, buying very few first graders from other clubs, is proof of the quality of the club's development.
The city of Melbourne not producing any top quality players is a different argument. Ultimately, it is going to take a long time, decades even, for the local competitions to build the culture and football IQ to produce that level of footballer. Pure numbers, money, imported expertise help but only go so far. It takes generational knowledge and culture.
Both of these statements are utter bollocks.
The Storm and Roosters both demonstrate that home grown juniors contribute absolute nothing to a club's chances of success.
And the Storm have crowds better than 90% of the clubs who pride themselves on local juniors.
How do you get schools to play it?would fund a major schools program, at the moment they largely leave it up to the local amateur clubs to try and attract kids to play.
How do you get schools to play it?
I would have no doubt it simply not an option, in most schools for Victorian kid, need government support for that, political will, as well, not sure that wins votes down there.
I find it hard to find actual sums provided.
I am pretty sure the NSWRL and then NRL do not actually fund schools like Westfields in NSW or the QRL Palm Beach Currumbin, just state funded, maybe I am wrong.
I have no objection to the NRL funding a school, but not sure it works that way at all.
Eventually league will be played in quarters, there's too much money in it, a 3min commercial break during live play would add an extra 0 to the TV deal.
I'd much rather the NRL try and make money by playing the game in quarters rather than putting an expansion team in Brisbane at the expense of Perth or another new market. A 2nd team in Brisbane would be a decision based purely on $$$ and does zero to expand and grow the game to new markets.
They won't pay extra if the ratings keep going down, and on FTA they are. Why? Mainly because people don't want the ads. It is why they watch it on Fox Sports, Kayo or even the NRL's own streaming service to avoid the advertising (and that is reflected by the growth in people watching games on those services).
Further 4 quarter football makes it easier on players stamina. It reward the less fit teams as they get more rests. I'm old enough to have watched enough four quarter rugby league games at the professional level when the mid-week cup used to be played at Leichhardt Oval to know that from direct observational experience. It actually detracts from the game.
Eventually league will be played in quarters, there's too much money in it, a 3min commercial break during live play would add an extra 0 to the TV deal.
I'd much rather the NRL try and make money by playing the game in quarters rather than putting an expansion team in Brisbane at the expense of Perth or another new market. A 2nd team in Brisbane would be a decision based purely on $$$ and does zero to expand and grow the game to new markets.
You could be right.You're probably right but I was talking about in non RL heartlands. If you want to get traction in states dominated by AFL then you have to put more in. Sadly our new chairman clearly doesn't think that it is worth it.
Same as any corporation. Westpac, RACQ etc.I am confused what is the Chairman's role V the role of the CEO of the NRL???