Show us on TV or show us the money: Raiders

[Firey_Dragon]

2 points to note:

1 - We won the Under 20s comp last year with these stars. This is more than just hype, they've proven they are the best young crop.

2 - If other teams developed their own and didnt rely on cheque-books you'd see the Raiders dominating.

I'll always support the Raiders developing their juniors, I cant understand the logic that goes behind supporting a player for 2 years and then when he loses form supporting a star from some other team that happens to where your jersey for the next 2 years (and so the cycle continues)

The Roosters had the most dominant flegg side I've ever seen in 04, I think only 4 of them have made the top grade (Jamie Soward, Michael Lett, Heath LeStrange and Joe Williams)... Winning the comp proves nothing IMO, the teams that usually struggle are the ones where their stars are getting hooked to play first grade and whatnot. Winning the U20's only proves that you've been able to establish a consistent side.

I find it funny that Canberra fans are whinging about "cheque-book" rugby league, when if memory serves me correctly, they got fined for going over the cap not too long ago. Canberra are certainly spending money, they struggle because it's hard to lure players to Canberra cheaply due to a) location and b) strength of the existing side.

 

[Paullyboy]

Canberra went over the top retaining our own players because scum Sydney clubs are too lazy to do their own development work and force the price up on our own players. We certainly dont have salary cap issues because of external signings.

As for that Roosters Flegg side, I agree they were ridiculously good, but the Flegg level of competition isn't anywhere near what the U20s competition is. And on top of that, that team was Jamie Soward with 16 other people standing around watching him.

 

[Billythekid]

he may not have the acceleration of a slater or jennings, but over 100m he would match it with the games best

How often do players run 100? Acceleration is everything.

I'm not trying to talk down Dugan either BTW.

 

[Lambretta]

Personally I'd love to see the type of proposal Johnsy proposed come up.

Each team should be scheduled in a minimum number of games each season on free to air.

As for those claims that Canberra are not good to watch, this is not only based upon last season. Canberra have made the top 8 a number of times, playing attractive football and they didn't get any FTA games.

The reason is that programming is Sydney centric. You only have to look at how Canberra is named as team most likely to win wooden spoon in the media and then the same journo's wonder in amazement when they make the eight. In simple terms, they are under rated purely because they're not a Sydney team.

In 2003 the Melbourne Storm were in the top 8 all year and barely got a Free to Air game. It was only when they hit the outright lead of the comp in 2004 that they were even shown and Nine's commentators were not exactly kind to them. Wondering live on air how long their bubble would last and when they'd crash out of the Finals etc.

Friday night football has addressed this to some degree with a Queensland team AND a NSW team featuring - but if that's the format they're going to follow for FNF then that only really leaves Sunday open for Canberra and that means they have to be ultra competative (ie a top 3 side) to be shown on TV. They wont be featured in 6th or 7th spot - even against say St George, if Parra are playing Penrith on the same weekend for example.

Canberra's lack of supporter based in Sydney, in comparrison to the 9 Sydney clubs means this will remain the case.

The guys running Nine like the Dragons, Eels & Bulldogs before any other side and there are reasons for that - but it doesnt make it fair.

As a neutral (when my team is not playing) I'd love to see a variety of sides on free to air, especially early in the season.

Oh and Channel 9 surely has to get over this "Brisbane" are the only team in Queesland brainsnap. The Titans were higher on the NRL ladder than the Broncos last season and yet about the only times they featured were if they played Brisbane (in my eyes that doesnt count as a Titans game as the Broncos are the reason it's shown) or if they played the Cowboys and they could sell the "Queenslander" angle.

Queensland game first for Friday night should include the Storm. After all, it's rammed full of Queenslanders. That'll go some way to breaking the monopoly the Broncos have.

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

As a long suffering Cowboys fan(pre 2004 had ONE game in NINE yrs on FTA),i agree with the Raiders fans.
Just because you are a fan of a club that is not always up near the top of the ladder should not mean that you are less important than fans of better performing clubs.

ALL RL fans deserve to see their team on FTA .
As RL fan i will watch whatever game is on ....far better if my team is playing ,but i still enjoy watching.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

Canberra went over the top retaining our own players because scum Sydney clubs are too lazy to do their own development work and force the price up on our own players. We certainly dont have salary cap issues because of external signings.

As for that Roosters Flegg side, I agree they were ridiculously good, but the Flegg level of competition isn't anywhere near what the U20s competition is. And on top of that, that team was Jamie Soward with 16 other people standing around watching him.

I think you missed the point of my post. I was saying Canberra are using their cap, just like every other team in this comp. They just struggle to attract quality players and have to pay overs for their current squad for the reasons I listed. Canberra's biggest issue is that they're in Canberra, very few players want to live there.

As for the Roosters side, they would have given any team in the current U20's a good run for their money. They had some quality players like Peewee Moke and Jermaine Ale who tore up at that level, but just never kicked on.

 

[Raider_69]

that maybe true, but anyone who watched Flegg and U20s can not tell me with a straight face it was of the same level of competition. U20's is far better, more advanced and more intense, i dont why given its the same age critera but it is.

This is going way off course

As a long suffering Cowboys fan(pre 2004 had ONE game in NINE yrs on FTA),i agree with the Raiders fans.
Just because you are a fan of a club that is not always up near the top of the ladder should not mean that you are less important than fans of better performing clubs.

ALL RL fans deserve to see their team on FTA .
As RL fan i will watch whatever game is on ....far better if my team is playing ,but i still enjoy watching.

100% spot on mate
every RL fan has a right to see their team without needing Foxtel. Every club has a right to vye for new young fans via FTA coverage.
Channel 9 might not have any responsibility to promote the game and its clubs properly but the NRL does and if its not going to get hard on nine and force them to give fairer coverage, they should be compesating the clubs they are being unfair on.

 

[Talanexor]

I definitely agree with the picking-a-team-you-see-on TV argument.

I was never interested in league as a kid. Never even played it. I DID play AFL and Union - so I know first hand just how much better the league game is.

The first NRL match I ever watched was the 2005 Grand Final. And being a Queenslander just recently moved to Sydney, I had to support the Cowboys. Been die-hard ever since. Had I watched ANY Friday night games before then, I'd probably have ended up a Broncos fan.

Incidentally, the 2005 Grand Final was about the best introduction to the game of Rugby League I can imagine...

 

[_Johnsy]

Canberra went over the top retaining our own players because scum Sydney clubs are too lazy to do their own development work and force the price up on our own players.

Some people just rely on the "victim mentality" way too much. So it's official according to paullyboy. Canberra are the only club who do development work improving the younger players at their club.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

You idiot!!!!!!

 

[Timmah]

Canberra went over the top retaining our own players because scum Sydney clubs are too lazy to do their own development work and force the price up on our own players. We certainly dont have salary cap issues because of external signings.

As for that Roosters Flegg side, I agree they were ridiculously good, but the Flegg level of competition isn't anywhere near what the U20s competition is. And on top of that, that team was Jamie Soward with 16 other people standing around watching him.

Are you f**king serious?

Every club buys players. :lol:

 

[Timmah]

A point raised earlier - it's far more important getting Melbourne on FTA before midnight than it is to give Canberra more games overall.

Is it really impacting the bottom line of the club anyway?

 

[Raider_69]

As a long suffering Cowboys fan(pre 2004 had ONE game in NINE yrs on FTA),i agree with the Raiders fans.
Just because you are a fan of a club that is not always up near the top of the ladder should not mean that you are less important than fans of better performing clubs.

ALL RL fans deserve to see their team on FTA .
As RL fan i will watch whatever game is on ....far better if my team is playing ,but i still enjoy watching.

A point raised earlier - it's far more important getting Melbourne on FTA before midnight than it is to give Canberra more games overall.

Is it really impacting the bottom line of the club anyway?

First paragraph i agree with

But the second, are you f**king geniused?

You dont think the fact the club cant get its sponsors on FTA network is impacting its bottem line? You dont think its major, sleave, short sponsors, or its major signage sponsors around Canberra Stadium might be paying less due to the fact they dont get access to a massive network of potential customers?
You dont think the Bronco's who are on every week get more for their sponsorship deals than we do due to the fact they get so much coverage?
You dont think 3rd party sponsors to help attract players is easier to come by for a high profile club that's on a time winning FTA TV slot every month in a big city like Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane, than it is for a club with no coverage, and no big business?
You dont think the fact we're not on TV impacts our fan base and its numbers, thus impacting directly the gate takings and merchandise takings year to year? Let alone season memberships etc.
You dont think these aspects of business, particularly regarding crowd figures impacts on the deal we strike with Canberra Stadium and other deals that hinge on interest and crowd figures?
You dont think all these factors combined could equate to a number thats significant for a club like Canberra.
I'd argue the lack of coverage is potentially costing us over 500k a year, maybe MORE, in total collectively. And thats not an impact

Are you serious?
Are you seriously asking weather the lack of FTA is impacting our bottom line?
I know your thick, but surely you arent that thick... are you?

Good greif :lol:
I get people not agreeing with the stance of asking for compensation and i get people argueing why we shouldnt get FTA coverage, but to actually run with a line questioning weather the lack of FTA coverage for our club impacts our bottom line? I just shake my head at the stupidity of it

 

[Green Machine]

Raider 69, Timmy is a flea and lightweight. He’s in the Locky.no1 class. Don’t worry about explaining how sponsors get better exposure with the larger FTA audience. That comment was as stupid as his unsupported claim about the Raiders PayTV audience,

 

[Russell Crowe's Band]

You Cant Be Serious!

and yeah. genius statement.

however, you would have thought with all the times were in the sharks were in the news this year lucky goldstar would have stuck about.

ah well.

 

[Raider_69]

i eagerly await the dopey prick brushing his stupidity off by claiming he was fishing.

 

[Man_of_Steel_1982]

The answer to this is obvious. Just show ALL games on FTA, then all clubs benefit with FTA exposure and the obvious benefits of public exposure of the game.

 

[Sugar]

What are the numbers for fta games per team in 2009?

 

[E.T.D]

What are the numbers for fta games per team in 2009?

18 Brisbane
15 St George-Illawarra
13 Parramatta
11 Wests Tigers
10 Canterbury, Penrith,
9 Newcastle,South Sydney
8 Manly, North Queensland
7 Gold Coast
6 Melbourne
5 Sydney Roosters
4 NZ Warriors
2 Canberra, Cronulla.

 

[PJ Marshal]

canberra need brett mullins ken nagas and noa nandruku in their team to get more fta games

 

[Sugar]

18 Brisbane
15 St George-Illawarra
13 Parramatta
11 Wests Tigers
10 Canterbury, Penrith,
9 Newcastle,South Sydney
8 Manly, North Queensland
7 Gold Coast
6 Melbourne
5 Sydney Roosters
4 NZ Warriors
2 Canberra, Cronulla.

That is a disgracful difference between the top and bottom.

Canberra have every reason to raise the issue after seeing those figures
no wonder the broncos where named most popular sporting team in aus