Tigers to sue NRL, maybe

[AlexM]

well now that explains everything

 

[galahs]

Sorry for this off topic question, Yappy as the moderator of westsmagpies.net do you have a decent sized logo of the new wests magpies logo (the one they use now)?

Cheers mate

GALAHs
A wests fan who
1. wants Wests to return to Campbelltown
2. would love to one again support the black and whites in the NRL.

We are the Magpies, get - it, right.
We won't run, from - the - fight.
We will hit you, with - all - our - might.
Because we are the magpies, Black - and - White!

 

[yappy]

ah another telegraph reader

Balmain were about to go broke and were about to merge with Parramatta but that backfired because Fitzgerald thinks the merger isnt justified.

um no - Fitzy was keen as for the Balmain merger - they wanted the logo, and the $8mil merger money. Balmain was going to get less than Illawarra, that's why they jumped at Wests when they came knocking.

Wests were about to merge with the Bulldogs and have the stadium built in Liverpool but that backfired as well because of the Bullfags chose to go and play in the Super sh*t league.

um no again - Wests were NEVER - repeat NEVER EVER not in a million years going to merge with Canterbury. It was discussed by a couple of our board members and they were allowed to talk to Canterbury. Once it became clear what Canterbury were offering (ie nothing) even these dopes realised they had no hope in hell of getting it past the membership. The Magpies membership would have merged with Manly before they considered anything to do with Canterbury. The only place it had a chance was in the Telegraph. The only talk of mergers came well after Super League.

Wests were losing heaps of money since the NRL comp began and likewise for Balmain.

Moffet told them to merge or face the boot out of the NRL. Thats the reason why they had to merge.

Everyone lost money in those years, Wests no more or less than most. Where we were at a massive disadvantage was that we got less Pay TV money than most. We got less than all Super League clubs obviously, but also less than most ARL sides. Langmack was about the only player at the club on an ARL supported contract. Newcastle by comparison had pretty much everyone subsidised. That's why we struggled so bad in 98-99, couldn't afford players because the market was distorted, and there was no one to buy anyhow as all the players on Super League contracts were prohibited from playing for ARL clubs. It doesn't matter how good you think your club is - in the same circumstances anyone is going to struggle.

As for Moffet, well I don't know why would have listened to the dude running the NZRU but hey if you say so.

Maybe you should think twice next time you want to parade your ignorance.

 

[yappy]

Sorry for this off topic question, Yappy as the moderator of westsmagpies.net do you have a decent sized logo of the new wests magpies logo (the one they use now)?

Cheers mate

GALAHs
A wests fan who
1. wants Wests to return to Campbelltown
2. would love to one again support the black and whites in the NRL.

We are the Magpies, get - it, right.
We won't run, from - the - fight.
We will hit you, with - all - our - might.
Because we are the magpies, Black - and - White!

yeah mate - email me webmaster@westsmagpies.net and I'll send it to you.

I hope you're going to pop in and have a chat at the nest mate.

 

[brooksy19]

Well said Yappy

 

[galahs]

Shall do yappy, I have visited your site quite often (and I can blame you as your site led me to e-bay where I got into a bidding war on an old black and white maggies V jumper. Boy there going for good prices).

Have been following the good fortunes of Ben Roberts (went to my school) in the premier league.

Now I've just got to get around becoming a member of the magpies nest (forums).

Keep up the good work with the site.

GALAHs

 

[Razor]

they were told 14 teams would be the way to go,

And that was until the end of 2005. After 2005 it could change. They can't have the same number of teams forever. And the arrangment was that there will be 14 teams until 2005, then the teams will be reviewed.

However for the 2008 season they should allow both Wests and Balmain back in on the proviso they both relocate to an area not currently serviced by an NRL side (say Central Coast, Wellington, Adelaide, Perth or Christchurch). St George and Illawarra should also both be readmitted on the proviso that Illawarra are based at Illawarra full-time and the Dragons relocate to one of the above areas.

 

[galahs]

Macarthur area needs a successfull, fulltime fugby league team in the NRL. If that means the Tigers move or the Magpies are reinstated is another matter all together.

 

[yappy]

Gold Coast Tigers?




ha suits me. Gold Coast need a nick and it is still 16 teams with the Mighty Magpies back in Macarthur where they belong. Simon and his Balmain mates of course mightn't be so keen.

 

[brooksy19]

Again, im still yet to see anyone nominate their team for relocation. (this is should be a pre-recorded message by now for some of the half wits here.)

 

[hybrid_tiger]

Personally, I am happy with the merger after a few lean years. It's not Balmain but in the long run we are definately better off as a merged entity.

The next step IMO is merging the premier league sides, although not all fans will be too keen on this suggestion.

Noyce has a right to state his opinion on this matter and I really don't think it has anything to do with breaking up and going seperate ways.

 

[hybrid_tiger]

Have been following the good fortunes of Ben Roberts (went to my school) in the premier league.

Were you in the same grade as Ben? I was...

 

[Foz]

Did Wests and Balmain make noises about the 16th team prior to the Gold Coast getting a gig?
I dont know because if the two sides were/are upset the media wouldn't give it space anyway.
If they were really upset they have a point.
I know that the Central Coast and some NZ side put in a proposal that has been rejected so far.
There may be a reason why Wests and Balmain didn't put in an application.
I'd like to know.
Manly didn't have to go through too much to get re-instated as a separate entity after the Northern Eagles broke up.
Norths may not have had money to back a side. (i dont know if that was the reason but if it wasn't questions should be asked there).
I dont think a few sides have had a fair go in all this but its too hard to get facts involved with it.
Once the spin doctors get to work its too hard to separate fact from fiction.

 

[innsaneink]

A loyal fan wouldn't do a runner on rugby league though :? You may have lost some bandwagon fans, not loyal ones.

Aaaah OK, I'll tell my old mans mate that followed the Magpies for 60 odd years he was a bandwagonner.

Hes walked away from the game so he obviously has no loyalty and that half century plus count for nothing.

:?

 

[yappy]

I wasn't aware I was a bandwagoner too. Sat through all the lean years in the 80's, sat through the living hell of 99, keep right behind the club I've supported since I was 7 years old by getting to as many Premier League, Jersey Flegg, SG Ball, and Harold Matthews games as I can manage, but in reality I'm fickle. I'm glad we've got arbitors of character like Iafeta here to set me straight.

 

[AlexM]

ah another telegraph reader



um no - Fitzy was keen as for the Balmain merger - they wanted the logo, and the $8mil merger money. Balmain was going to get less than Illawarra, that's why they jumped at Wests when they came knocking.



um no again - Wests were NEVER - repeat NEVER EVER not in a million years going to merge with Canterbury. It was discussed by a couple of our board members and they were allowed to talk to Canterbury. Once it became clear what Canterbury were offering (ie nothing) even these dopes realised they had no hope in hell of getting it past the membership. The Magpies membership would have merged with Manly before they considered anything to do with Canterbury. The only place it had a chance was in the Telegraph. The only talk of mergers came well after Super League.



Everyone lost money in those years, Wests no more or less than most. Where we were at a massive disadvantage was that we got less Pay TV money than most. We got less than all Super League clubs obviously, but also less than most ARL sides. Langmack was about the only player at the club on an ARL supported contract. Newcastle by comparison had pretty much everyone subsidised. That's why we struggled so bad in 98-99, couldn't afford players because the market was distorted, and there was no one to buy anyhow as all the players on Super League contracts were prohibited from playing for ARL clubs. It doesn't matter how good you think your club is - in the same circumstances anyone is going to struggle.

As for Moffet, well I don't know why would have listened to the dude running the NZRU but hey if you say so.

Maybe you should think twice next time you want to parade your ignorance.

Mate, I dont hardly read the telegraph and i am not being ignorant about this you dumf**k!.

Just let me explain in what i was trying to say before you jump to conclusions:

Firstly, I was trying to think back to 1995 when i heard rumours from ray hadley suggesting that the bulldogs are in talks with west about a merger and a possible move to Liverpool by having a leagues club, stadium and other sh*ts and obviously this did not work out.

And secondly, the thing about Parramatta and Balmain, well I was hearing this from Roy Masters on ch7 back in 1999 regarding the Parramatta and Balmain merger where masters interviewed fitzgerald about a possibility of using the tigers logo and use some of their players in their team. and than i thought another ARL merger. But lucky Balmain pulled out of this deal.

 

[yappy]

sorry pal, but you are being ignorant about it so go call yourself a dumf**k you dumf**k.

definition of ignorant - "lack of knowledge or awareness of a particular thing"

sounds exactly like you mate. You didn't hear of Wests and Canterbury talking in 95. It was 98. The meeting took place in the conference room at the Sunnybrook Hotel on the Hume Hwy at Warwick Farm. No one from Wests ever considered merging before 98 as that was the first year of the NRL and so before then the ARL was trying to keep everyone including the Crushers afloat to fight News. No one from Wests considered the Dogs as a partner for a second after this meeting. What you heard about in 95 was the Dogs moving to Liverpool - the infamous Oasis development. Remember that? Nothing at all to do with Wests.

As for the Balmain/Parra merger you've basically as much as admitted that I corrected your ignorant assertion that it was Parra that called it off. Fitzgerald was right behind it all the way until Balmain held a board meeting in May 99 to decide between Wests and Parra as a merger partner. After Balmain came out of the meeting and announced they were going with Wests Fitzy had a huge dummy spit.

I'm happy to educate you about issues I have some knowledge of in the interest of reducing your ignorance anytime dumf**ks like you sprout ignorant sh*t like your past two posts. Next time you want to know something just ask first and save yourself the embarressment.

 

[The Tank]

Some of you just try putting yourselves in anothers situation, say a Wests or Balmain fan thats supported his team for 20, 30, 50 even 70 years....yes thats right there were supporters that were lost by the forced merger that had followed their team for over half a century. 50 plus years of support, only to have their teams lied to and then stabbed in the back.



....you dont think losing those fans FOREVER didnt hurt RL?...Idiot!

Naaah, its OK....stuff those loyal fans, we'll replace em with some new ones.

so you think it's a good idea to take it back to the courts? do you support the wests tigers first or rugby league first?

and read my post before making judgements - i never said stuff the tigers/magpies/bears etc supporters. I just don't want them to take our game to the courts again.

Idiot!

 

[AlexM]

yeah thanx for the history lesson.


arsehole

 

[bartman]

Without dis-respecting the feelings of any fans of joint-venture clubs pre "merger", the NRL has been talking seriously about a 16th team for over a year now.

That is when Noyce or his equivalent (Doust?) should have been speaking out on your behalf, and talking of betrayal and legal challenges, not now as the NRL's announcement is finally made.

Not wishing it on anyone else, but unfortunately it's a reality in the modern, professional, commodified game. You just have to do the best thing at the time under the rules that apply at that time. All clubs looked after their future in the best way that they say fit.