Todd Greenberg has got to go!

[taipan]

...shakes head...rolls eyes... need some decent emojis.

Look for a realist one as a starting point.

 

[taipan]

Ahh so did the Sharks, just saying.

You are being left well and truly at the gate mate.I've have stated numerous times the Sharks jumped ship to SL,and the damage it did in the local community for fans.I attended the meeting ,when he Sharks decided under Gow to defect for financial reasons.

I would suggest as the Raiders didn't hold back and defect and Mals' famous comment"what has rugby league done for me" at the Shark's meeting, you would be a tad reticent .

 

[taipan]

Because 10 pages of long winded arguments is not enough?

Well if infinity is your go.Go for it.

 

[Pedge1971]

Well if infinity is your go.Go for it.

Thanks. Was desperate for your approval.

 

[taipan]

Thanks. Was desperate for your approval.

No problem.Always willing to assist.

 

[The Great Dane]

You are being left well and truly at the gate mate.I've have stated numerous times the Sharks jumped ship to SL,and the damage it did in the local community for fans.I attended the meeting ,when he Sharks decided under Gow to defect for financial reasons.

I would suggest as the Raiders didn't hold back and defect and Mals' famous comment"what has rugby league done for me" at the Shark's meeting, you would be a tad reticent .

You really don't see the irony of critising another club for doing the exact same thing that yours did then!?

 

[Stallion]

You really don't see the irony of critising another club for doing the exact same thing that yours did then!?

Except Taipan realises the mistake and you don't!

 

[The Great Dane]

Except Taipan realises the mistake and you don't!

Ahh... What?

 

[Stallion]

Ahh... What?

The involvement with superleague and their whole agenda was wrong. Taipan admits that the Sharks jumped ship for a quick money fix. Their was no support for carving up the clubs in Sydney whatsoever. Your club based outside of Sydney jumped ship. Assume it was money as well although you constantly support the carving up of Sydney clubs. That's the summation.

 

[taipan]

You really don't see the irony of critising another club for doing the exact same thing that yours did then!?

Um!! you really need to see my prior posts about the Sharks joining SL.No irony mate.I voted to go SL to save the club financially,after 28 years of living on the edge,and it nearly killed the code.And the cash on hand of the ARL ($25m thereabouts )in 1995 went into players/mgrs pockets,IMO a disgrace.
If we are going to be pedantic.The Sharks have been hanging around since 1967 before they decided wrongly IMO to join SL.

However the Reds were there ,what? a few months in 1995 ,the very year they joined( in fact a privilege) to defect to SL.
That's not irony thats embarrassing.Invited to a party .accept,then tell the host to get stuffed before the party's begun.
Then having the audacity to bag ensuing administrations including some with average CEOs,that they need to get back in.
Oh,I want to go to the party now ,the one I chose ended up a dud.Pathetic.And I want to get rid of some Sydney clubs, so I can get in.

And I suppose you back Mal's comments ATT.

 

[The Great Dane]

The involvement with superleague and their whole agenda was wrong. Taipan admits that the Sharks jumped ship for a quick money fix. Their was no support for carving up the clubs in Sydney whatsoever. Your club based outside of Sydney jumped ship. Assume it was money as well although you constantly support the carving up of Sydney clubs. That's the summation.

You don't know anything about my opinions on SL, so you shouldn't assume anything.

My opinions on SL and my reactions to it would probably surprise you.

Um!! you really need to see my prior posts about the Sharks joining SL.No irony mate.I voted to go SL to save the club financially,after 28 years of living on the edge,and it nearly killed the code.And the cash on hand of the ARL ($25m thereabouts )in 1995 went into players/mgrs pockets,IMO a disgrace.
If we are going to be pedantic.The Sharks have been hanging around since 1967 before they decided wrongly IMO to join SL.

However the Reds were there ,what? a few months in 1995 ,the very year they joined( in fact a privilege) to defect to SL.
That's not irony thats embarrassing.Invited to a party .accept,then tell the host to get stuffed before the party's begun.
Then having the audacity to bag ensuing administrations including some with average CEOs,that they need to get back in.
Oh,I want to go to the party now ,the one I chose ended up a dud.Pathetic.And I want to get rid of some Sydney clubs, so I can get in.

And I suppose you back Mal's comments ATT.

The Reds were in the same boat as the Sharks, so were the Raiders, and all the other SL clubs to varying degrees except Brisbane.

The Reds were hard up for cash before they even started, and were a very good chance of going broke after a few years (just like every new start up business is), when somebody came along promising to secure their future and they took the offer, can you blame them? I can't.

Your attitude to the Reds seems to be completely distorted because of your opinion of PR, which isn't my concern nor do I really care, but it's made your stance on this very hypocritical considering that they basically did the exact same thing that you voted to do and your club did.

 

[Stallion]

You don't know anything about my opinions on SL, so you shouldn't assume anything.

My opinions on SL and my reactions to it would probably surprise you.



The Reds were in the same boat as the Sharks, so were the Raiders, and all the other SL clubs to varying degrees except Brisbane.

The Reds were hard up for cash before they even started, and were a very good chance of going broke after a few years (just like every new start up business is), when somebody came along promising to secure their future and they took the offer, can you blame them? I can't.

Your attitude to the Reds seems to be completely distorted because of your opinion of PR, which isn't my concern nor do I really care, but it's made your stance on this very hypocritical considering that they basically did the exact same thing that you voted to do and your club did.

Thought you were keen to rid Sydney of many of its clubs? That's a 'super league' line of thought? If not I apologise and you must be a logical & decent minded fan of the game.

 

[flippikat]

The Reds were in the same boat as the Sharks, so were the Raiders, and all the other SL clubs to varying degrees except Brisbane.

The Reds were hard up for cash before they even started, and were a very good chance of going broke after a few years (just like every new start up business is), when somebody came along promising to secure their future and they took the offer, can you blame them? I can't.

I'd say that hits the nail squarely on the head.

I think the teams that joined SL did it as much for self-preservation as for the "vision" that was being sold - probably more so. Just think of the cash & benefits that were being waved in front of them by Newscorp.

The ARL just didn't have the nous to capitalise on rugby league's growing profile in the 1990s - you just have to look at how AFL was going about it's business - creating a truly national footprint, plus creating local derbies in Adelaide & Perth, then most importantly FOSTERING those teams throughout their infancy. They were in it for the long haul.

The SL clubs thought (wrongly & naively, as it turned out) that News Limited would look after the SL clubs AND keep those frontiers supported. Well, it did for some SL clubs.. but Perth & Adelaide were well and truly sold down the river.

 

[The Great Dane]

Thought you were keen to rid Sydney of many of its clubs? That's a 'super league' line of thought? If not I apologise and you must be a logical & decent minded fan of the game.

I'm not keen to rid anybody of their clubs, the only thing I want is for the NRL to rationalise it's presence in Sydney, no clubs have to be killed to achieve that.

That "line of thought" was also a NSWRL line of thought, and an Arko and Quayle line of thought, by the way. The will to remove some clubs from Sydney didn't start with SL.

 

[The Great Dane]

I'd say that hits the nail squarely on the head.

I think the teams that joined SL did it as much for self-preservation as for the "vision" that was being sold - probably more so. Just think of the cash & benefits that were being waved in front of them by Newscorp.

The ARL just didn't have the nous to capitalise on rugby league's growing profile in the 1990s - you just have to look at how AFL was going about it's business - creating a truly national footprint, plus creating local derbies in Adelaide & Perth, then most importantly FOSTERING those teams throughout their infancy. They were in it for the long haul.

The SL clubs thought (wrongly & naively, as it turned out) that News Limited would look after the SL clubs AND keep those frontiers supported. Well, it did for some SL clubs.. but Perth & Adelaide were well and truly sold down the river.

All the SL clubs were double crossed by News (and to an extent the Broncos or at least Ribot, who made sure that the clubs that he personally owned stakes in were well looked after) after the "war", except for the Broncos and Melbourne of course.

None of the promises or deals made with the clubs were up held, News' shares in the clubs were quickly got rid of, and some of the clubs were used as sacrifices in News plans.

News screwed everybody and got what they wanted in the process.

 

[Stallion]

I'm not keen to rid anybody of their clubs, the only thing I want is for the NRL to rationalise it's presence in Sydney, no clubs have to be killed to achieve that.

That "line of thought" was also a NSWRL line of thought, and an Arko and Quayle line of thought, by the way. The will to remove some clubs from Sydney didn't start with SL.

Rationalizing : code for mergering and reducing club presence in Sydney. A massive mistake! I'll take back the apology. Arko admitted in a one pn one interview with Sterlo that the (reducing Sydney clubs) stance was a mistake on tv this year. He said "You cannot rid the relationships and attachments of fans to well established and popular clubs. That line of thought is wrong and one I regret..."

 

[Canard]

The involvement with superleague and their whole agenda was wrong. Taipan admits that the Sharks jumped ship for a quick money fix. Their was no support for carving up the clubs in Sydney whatsoever. Your club based outside of Sydney jumped ship. Assume it was money as well although you constantly support the carving up of Sydney clubs. That's the summation.

You are a jerkoff of the highest order.

That's my summation.

 

[Stallion]

You are a jerkoff of the highest order.

That's my summation.

I see where you are coming from! Pretty pathetic but that's you!

 

[mave]

Sharks, Canberra and Perth fans whining about the effects of SL on our game today.

The definition of irony.

 

[taipan]

You don't know anything about my opinions on SL, so you shouldn't assume anything.

My opinions on SL and my reactions to it would probably surprise you.



The Reds were in the same boat as the Sharks, so were the Raiders, and all the other SL clubs to varying degrees except Brisbane.

The Reds were hard up for cash before they even started, and were a very good chance of going broke after a few years (just like every new start up business is), when somebody came along promising to secure their future and they took the offer, can you blame them? I can't.

Your attitude to the Reds seems to be completely distorted because of your opinion of PR, which isn't my concern nor do I really care, but it's made your stance on this very hypocritical considering that they basically did the exact same thing that you voted to do and your club did.

The Reds were not in the same boat as the Sharks.One was an established club,the Reds wanted in to the ARL comp in 1995 ,then promptly wanted out.
If the Reds were so hard up for cash as you suggest, then the ARL was remiss or incompetent in bringing them in the first place.Just as they showed rushing the crushers in, with SFA support and old players.

Again you make ignorant assumptions.Point 1,I am an expansionist wanting Perth and a 2nd Brisbane side into the comp.Always have.But I want it done at a position of existing clubs being remaining intact.I've seen enough damage removing clubs.

Point 2.I will respond in kind to PR,because of all the crap he offloads on the Sharks,wanting them removed ,so his mob can float in.
if that's being hypocritical, you have installed a new meaning.