Todd Greenberg has got to go!

[taipan]

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

The definition of irony.

I guess if the ARL's Ken Arthurson and indeed some former SL aligned people including Paul Kent ,can whine about the effect, then so can the fans of the above clubs.

 

[Pedge1971]

Ah Super League, the gift that keeps on giving. Guaranteed to start and argument even 20 years later.

 

[BuffaloRules]

The Reds secretly agreed to join SuperLeague before they had even played their first game... how the hell could they have already been broke?

 

[mave]

I guess if the ARL's Ken Arthurson and indeed some former SL aligned people including Paul Kent ,can whine about the effect, then so can the fans of the above clubs.

You can whine all you like. I find it hilariously ironic though.
What your club was involved in was a disgrace and set the game back, and some cost teams dearly (mainly foundation ARL teams, not that it would concern the likes of you. )

 

[M2D2]

You can whine all you like. I find it hilariously ironic though.
What your club was involved in was a disgrace and set the game back, and some cost teams dearly (mainly foundation ARL teams, not that it would concern the likes of you. )

Considering what your team did to Norths, you might want to keep the rocks away from the glass house youre living in.

 

[mave]

Considering what your team did to Norths, you might want to keep the rocks away from the glass house youre living in.

The Bears did a good enough job of screwing themselves without the need of any extra help.

And while you are re-writing history, let's not forget the reasons why Manly were devoid of $ after the SL war...

 

[M2D2]

The Bears did a good enough job of screwing themselves without the need of any extra help.

And while you are re-writing history, let's not forget the reasons why Manly were devoid of $ after the SL war...

You still supplied it.

 

[The Great Dane]

Rationalizing : code for mergering and reducing club presence in Sydney. A massive mistake! I'll take back the apology.

If you take your time and handle it properly you don't have to do mergers or relocation, or even reduce the club presence in Sydney, all you'd have to do is build up the lower tiers, re-gig the brands and business practices of a few clubs, and then eventually after a while once you a have significantly built up the lower tiers swap the positions of a few of the club within the pyramid.

No merging, relocating, or reduction necessary.

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..."

Well that's good for Arko cause he agrees with me, that's why no rational person that has really thought about it supports the killing off of clubs.

 

[flippikat]

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.

I'd say the ARL made a flawed decision to bring 4 clubs on-board in 1995 - call it remiss or incompetent, but 4 expansion teams in the same season was bats##t-crazy from any angle - player depth right through to financial stability.

If they'd introduced Auckland and Perth as the two expansion teams in 1995 (two new timezones, 1 more game per weekend), PLUS worked with existing Sydney clubs and the Gold Coast to get their financials back on track (or assist with relocations like Norths to Gosford) - with an eye to Melbourne and North Queensland joining towards the end of the 1990s, it could've been so much different.

 

[The Great Dane]

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.

Maybe that's all true, but it changes nothing morally.

Both the Reds and Sharks were hard up for cash (for different reasons, but they were all the same), both of them were offered a better deal, and both of them took the deal thinking that it would secure their future.

Morally they both did the exact same thing, to suggest that the Reds somehow acted worse or more disingenuously then the Sharks is simply hypocritical coming from a Sharks fan, especially coming from a person that claims to have voted in favour of going to SL.

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.

I've made no assumptions about any of your positions about anything, I've simply responded to what you have posted, and I don't care about your opinions of anybody or what transgressions you think they may have done to you or your club.

 

[M2D2]

Morally they both did the exact same thing, to suggest that the Reds somehow acted worse or more disingenuously then the Sharks is simply hypocritical coming from a Sharks fan, especially coming from a person that claims to have voted in favour of going to SL.

 

[The Great Dane]

Ok then what was so different about the Sharks situation when compared to the Reds situation?

 

[Perth Red]

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.

It was like accepting an invite to a night at the sharks league club then being offered a ticket to an all night orgy in russel crowes penthouse with the girls from parade.
Of course they took the offer!

And yes you voting for sharks to join SL then slagging off every other club, and especially their fans who had no vote on the matter, is hypocrisy at its very best!

 

[Perth Red]

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.

ARL were pedaling that line long before SL!

 

[Perth Red]

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

The definition of irony.

Why? It’s not like the fans, well except sharks fans, had any say in it.

 

[Perth Red]

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.
.

They were incompetent, it’s the only reason you could surmise putting a financial anchor around their neck before they even kicked off.

 

[flippikat]

Maybe that's all true, but it changes nothing morally.

Both the Reds and Sharks were hard up for cash (for different reasons, but they were all the same), both of them were offered a better deal, and both of them took the deal thinking that it would secure their future.

Morally they both did the exact same thing, to suggest that the Reds somehow acted worse or more disingenuously then the Sharks is simply hypocritical coming from a Sharks fan, especially coming from a person that claims to have voted in favour of going to SL.

I can see the argument against the Reds that goes "The ARL had just let them join the competition, and then they go and betray the ARL JUST LIKE THAT (how dare they!)", but given that the ARL saddled the Reds with costs that TV money from the WA timeslot should have paid for, the joy of joining turned into a hell of a grind pretty quickly.

Also, it must've become pretty clear to them that the ARL didn't have a great strategy to manage expansion, maximise revenue, or even solve the inequity problem amongst their clubs.. but in the early 1990s there was no other option. Even if Perth wanted to try their hand at rugby union, there was no serious competition they could bid to join.

I can certainly see what the appeal was when Newscorp came at them with a pitch to get decent TV money into the game to cover the costs (and then some!).

 

[M2D2]

Ok then what was so different about the Sharks situation when compared to the Reds situation?

Its been explained to you, multiple times.

 

[The Great Dane]

Its been explained to you, multiple times.

Not in a reasonable or logical way...

 

[Stallion]

Not in a reasonable or logical way...

Longevity is an advantage. It proves to most people that your club has been popular and stood the test of time. You will find that the Sharks and all Sydney clubs have longevity as an asset. The clubs joiningthe league do not have this longevity asset.