superleague

[aids]

In the end, do you think the super league wars in the mid nineties have hurt or helped Australian league?


Initially, as I was in my mid teens and playing in west's juniors at the time I was a keen league fan and was really into the game after the 94 season (?) and the Australian test over in England.
Around the same time, the footyshow had just started and the league was just about to introduce a few new teams to the competition.
Then I think it was the end of 95 or the start of 96 when super league appeared.
Now, I was young and cannot remember all the details.
However, I do remember teams and players being paid to align to the arl and news ltd. and some players getting large contract and all many of craziness in that time.
Court battles prevented the 96(?) season from starting up for super league and then in 97(?) we had two competitions.

now I watched a few games on galaxy satellite back then because a few of my friends had it, and I found the coverage and presentation better than the same thing chnl 9 were producing, however I felt no connection to any of the teams.
So I never got into it.
Then after more legal battles and eventual peace talks the arl and news ltd. formed the NRL, with one of its main goals to be bring the game back to 14 teams.
In addition, we see the game in its modified form now; with 15 teams after south has re-admission through a court battle.

Now, my knowledge on the events is probably poor and rusty.
(In addition, if anyone has a good site with the events that took place I would be thankful).
However, do you think that what happened in the mid 90's helped the game here or not?

Personally I think it did, but giving a quick taste at a fully national competition (Perth, Adelaide, extra qld teams and eventually Melbourne)
In addition, showed us that to a smaller and less stable environment that it was almost possible to branch out for a national league.
Which I hope in the future is a possibility.
Also, helped in bringing in a tight salaries cap, which appears to be working.



Sorry if I am rambling just wanted to get your thoughts about it.
In addition, if anyone knows a good place to get info on the super league wars please let me know.

 

[rugged]

I don't think it helped the game here.

But I can definitely see why it developed and it was a great concept, it was just too similar to the ARL existing competition, unlike the one day cricket thing which works alongside the test cricket arena.

There are positives that have come out of it I guess but you'd have to be creative to think of them.

 

[Red Bear]

Nope, didnt help the game here at all. Super League killed off expansion, they killed Adalaide n Perth. The also wrecked the game and were a big part in f**king up my two teams. Of course they then formed the partneship and are now helping to ruin league(and of course were half the body which also helped to kill off the Bears). Super League teams and administrators are scum. ARL shoulda held out for another year and made them come crawling back.

 

[Zack DLR]

Interesting argument your making, that superleague may have dragged the ARL into the era of professionalism. But I would strongly argue that superleague was not good for the game.

Firstly, the exorbitant spending of superleague, that then had to be matched by the ARL inflated player payments to unsustainably high levels, that eventually took traditionl clubs like wests, balmain, illawarra, st george, norths and souths to the wall.

The traditional clubs were forced to fight a war against a goliath, with money that they didnt really have.

Ken Arthursons opinion has always been that the ARL had plans for expansion and professionalism of the game, but that they would be followed at the rate, and to the extent that the game could support it.

Superleague may have expanded the competition more nationally than the ARL, but to what gain?? where are the Adelaide Rams now??

 

[Red Bear]

ARL were always gunna be there for tradition and expansion, super league was her for money.

How traditional did all the jersey's in that comp look eh!!! :lol:

 

[axl rose]

Super League good? hmm.

Set player payments the game could never afford and clubs broke.

Put Lions on the map in Brisbane and sent Broncos crowds from 50,000 + to sometimes below 10,000.

Gave Sydney Swans the break they needed. I remember watching a game Swans v St Kilda with 40,000 people. Next door was Souths v Broncos with the Marching Band present making up the biggest numbers.


You want to know about Super League? well just go to China and you will see Ettinghausen, Daley, Stuart on giant billboards so just ask around because Super League was very popular there.

 

[gunnamatta bay]

Some very ordinary players on both sides got paid extraordinary money.

 

[Kiwi]

I think it was good and bad for the game.

 

[aids]

the rams were planned, but were always 2nd to melbourne.

i think melbounre are goign ok, and the main thing stopping the storm from taking off well is the lack of media coverage down south.
considering it's packers call to what goes where on chnl 9 i don't understand why they get neglected.

from the people i know over in perth, they were right into it, and said the crowds and media were right behind them.
so i think the NRL made an average call by axing them.

in my opinion, i really like souths
but did they really need to come back?
i think even if norths came back they would perform better(though maybe not considering PL results).

my idea for the NRL would be...

1) sydney team(roosters)
2) melbourne team (storm)
3) brisbane team (broncoes)
4) canberra team (raiders)
5) adelaide team (rams)
6) perth (reds)
7) west sydney team (penrith)
8) south qld team (dolphins/seagulls/crushers)
9) northern/country nsw team (newcastle)
10) northern/ counrty qld team (coyboys)
11) nz based team (warriors)

12) a) a uk soccer style divison system dicating the 4 nsw teams (through premier league)
b)""2 qld teams
c) ""1 other team if needed, from either NSWRL, QLDRL, VICRL, SARL,WARL or NZRL. This is optional.

16 to 17 teams in total.


with points 12, this would bring more support and pressure for the grass roots teams in the local area to perform well.


maybe i'm crazy though.
and i'm a west's fan, so with this suggestion i also face the possibilty in losing a team from the NRL as well.

so no one eyed bashing is needed.

 

[aids]

Some very ordinary players on both sides got paid extraordinary money.

i remember an interview with wendel sailor at the peak of the spending.
he was sitting in his mansion, and telling the interviewer that he was well worth a million a year.


i never hated a player as much as him.

 

[axl rose]

Some very ordinary players on both sides got paid extraordinary money.

I remember reading in Goose Goulds book that he was doing some negotiating and it came to John Cartwright. They said they would offer him a contract and Cartwright said they shouldnt really worry about it because he was just about finished playing and getting slow etc.

They then said they could offer him a $350,000 two year deal plus $30,000 in his bank account within the hour. After crying(with joy!) Cartwright signed the deal. He was on about 40 grand a year with Penrith.

Something like 2 or 3 hours later Cartwright was back and wanted out of the deal! Why you ask? Super League came in with an offer of $100,000 sign on fee plus a 4 year deal woth close to half a million bucks. They didnt let him out of his ARL deal and he was left crying!
(not with joy this time :lol

 

[girvie]

It definantly wasn't good for the game.
I still think rugby league isn't as good as it was back in the early 90's.

 

[Zack DLR]

in my opinion, i really like souths
but did they really need to come back?
i think even if norths came back they would perform better(though maybe not considering PL results).

But you see youre only remembering souths in the post superleague era, after they had been forced to fight a war they didnt start.

Its true that souths havent had a strong season since about 1989, but they weren't as poor as they are now, until superleague came along.

All teams in the competition revolve through periods of dominance and periods of weakness and struggle. Rationalisation just happened to come along at the time when souths were down, and parramatta and the bulldogs (who have both gone through long periods of weakness) were up.

Im not a souths fan, but the traditional clubs that got a raw deal in the superleague era cant be entirely blamed for being poorer and struggling more (or not existing at all) now. How can the western suburbs magpies match the spending power of news limited??

 

[aids]

... How can the western suburbs magpies match the spending power of news limited??

they didn't, they collected the wooden spoon in 98 and 99 and merged with the tigers in '00

i'm not bagging souths out, i just didn't elaborute myself well enough.
rather than having to battle through the legal system and blow through millions of dolalrs.

it would have been better(with my suggested(and theoritcal) system) for them to spend those million dollars on junior develpment and ground work for redfren rathen than to a group of barristers?

same goes with most teams, who are happy to buy other teams players at the cost of losing their own juniors.
and i'm using newcastle as an example for this.
spenidng all that money on johns, and no promise he will last a season.
i think they would have been better using the money on juniors and suffers a few underperforming years but build back up.
even spending less money on orford would have been a good idea as well.

 

[bartman]

No question.

Superleague in Australia and the resulting split, and the rising player payements, and the us against them mentalities, the Sydney or the bush smokescreen (when expansion had already been underway), and the lasting legacy of News Ltd involvement (without the benefit of any preferential media coverage) gutted the game, and whilst time has past, we are still making up some of the ground from eight years ago. :evil:

 

[Southernsaint]

the rams were planned, but were always 2nd to melbourne.

i think melbounre are goign ok, and the main thing stopping the storm from taking off well is the lack of media coverage down south.
considering it's packers call to what goes where on chnl 9 i don't understand why they get neglected.

from the people i know over in perth, they were right into it, and said the crowds and media were right behind them.
so i think the NRL made an average call by axing them.

in my opinion, i really like souths
but did they really need to come back?
i think even if norths came back they would perform better(though maybe not considering PL results).

my idea for the NRL would be...

1) sydney team(roosters)
2) melbourne team (storm)
3) brisbane team (broncoes)
4) canberra team (raiders)
5) adelaide team (rams)
6) perth (reds)
7) west sydney team (penrith)
8) south qld team (dolphins/seagulls/crushers)
9) northern/country nsw team (newcastle)
10) northern/ counrty qld team (coyboys)
11) nz based team (warriors)

12) a) a uk soccer style divison system dicating the 4 nsw teams (through premier league)
b)""2 qld teams
c) ""1 other team if needed, from either NSWRL, QLDRL, VICRL, SARL,WARL or NZRL. This is optional.

16 to 17 teams in total.


with points 12, this would bring more support and pressure for the grass roots teams in the local area to perform well.


maybe i'm crazy though.
and i'm a west's fan, so with this suggestion i also face the possibilty in losing a team from the NRL as well.

so no one eyed bashing is needed.

LOL, why would Easts be the chosen Sydney team?? They might have a bit of cash but they lack in supporters. If there was to only be one team - and I doubt there would be - it would be C*nterbury. Equally as wealthy as Easts but with far more supporters & in a growth area of Sydney.

Regardless, I will follow St George anywhere. The idea of standing on the Hill at Henson Park or Redfern fills me with much more happiness than being spoonfed a Rugby League display by two franchises at Stadium Australia.

Cheers,
Ben S.

 

[dimitri]

there is only one thing super league had that wasnt sh1t

and that was the video ref

they didnt expand - they killed expansion

arl

brought in auckland, perth, NQ, SQ

and planned to bring in

melbourne monarchs and adelaide aces

super league helped kill all those teams

and some sydney teams


super league was a sham




i think my LEGAL TEXT BOOKS summed it up best when in the case of NEWS ltd v ARL they started with the quote

"news ltd became interested in RL because of the lucrative televisionr rights"


in my opinion they didnt give a stuff about the game

and i still dont think they do

 

[chemicalbrother]

I thought it hindered Aussie RL but i would give them one credit where it is due!!! and that the


video refs. Although it slow the game down but 99% of the try and not try decision can be proven.

 

[Surandy]

www.rl1908.com

Melbourne Monarchs? Argh!!! What a crap name! Glad we got the STORM instead!!!

 

[yakstorm]

Super League did help the game in Britain, it turned it around from the point where it was falling apart and dieing badly into what is now quite a growing competition which for the first time is pushing the boundaries of its 'heartland' and has since become fully professional as a result.

However if you look at Australia...I honestly feel any benefits that could of come from the whole Super League war have been thrown away. There was the potential for teams to be setup around Australia, and perhaps in 10 years time they could of been quite well supported. These being primarily Perth and Adelaide, but they were thrown away, so instead of their being somewhere to build from, we went back to scratch and pretty much killed League in both those states.

In short, SL did little to help Australia, but League is coming back....thats the main thing. Juniors up, crowds up, tv ratings up, things are only looking good for our sport