Todd Greenberg has got to go!

[beave]

In the NQ 20 year book, in mentions in there the fact the ARL moved the goalposts once the 4 teams were accepted into the comp by making the clubs have to pay for all the costs for the travelling teams. Now I am not sure if this was an agreement for only the 4 new teams or for the whole comp, if it was for the whole comp you can see there is a bit of an advantage for the Sydney clubs as some teams you face are on your door step while Perth and NQ would have been faced with huge bills every home game. You gotta remember back then a flight from Sydney-Tvl return was about $600,which was a lot of money in those days, you also had reserve grade and all the coaching staff for both grades. It was a pretty big burden to bare, but what were the 4 expansion clubs going to do after being accepted into the comp, hand back the licenses and walkaway??? no they were going to try and make it work.

When SL came knocking well we (NQ)had no choice really. Our board was very New$ orientated as the local paper was pretty much the whole reason the Cowboys came into the comp, they pushed the issue and ran with it after a broncs/eels pre-season game when about 16k rocked up). We were an easy target for news limited to strike upon.

We also had to build the stadium ourselves as well, the state gov gave us a disused harness racing track that had a small grandstand and said ‘go for your lives’. If it wasn’t for the local businesses that donated machinery, materials and workers we wouldn’t have a place to play. This is why I was furious at the state gov when they f**ked us around for our new stadium but hand over shit left right and centre down here in SEQLD for stadiums, we were given a shit sandwich and made to deal with it ourselves meanwhile the broncos, titans, lions and the suns were given these beautiful homes to play out of. There is not a bad seat at 1300’s but the main grandstand is too small for corporates, the basic facilities are just that.

Our stadium didn’t even have the change rooms under the grandstands like it does now, they used some old stables from the track days and the players used to run on to the field from the SW corner where the stables were, it looked amatuer like hour

None of the carparks were sealed and we didn’t have grandstands on top of the north and south hills. All these improvements were made purely with the SL money we were given when we signed over. The ARL was never going to provide us with that sort of incentive to stay loyal. It was a merkin act by us to defect over but we had no choice really as I reckon if we stayed loyal we would have folded up within about 5-6years .....which we actually still nearly did even with the SL money so f**k knows how we would have gone without it. Mind you, there was some gross incompetence in the running of the club but that is a story for another day.

 

[taipan]

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. )

Did I suggest otherwise, or do you just respond with your own assumption?.I stated it was a disgrace.

 

[taipan]

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.

I agree.Arthurson ATT was working on only having two from what I understand.Then it was stated with the bids involved ,he stated it was quoted by some journalist "let's bring them all in".Irrational IMO then.

 

[siv]

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.

Issue started back in 1982 when Newcastle turned them down. They had a strategy if even # of comp teams.

When 1988 came around we added 3 rather than 1.

In 1995 4 teams, I am certain, was a reaction to SL rumours as the original plan was just 2. Crushers were a QRL team to destabilize the power base of the Broncos

 

[taipan]

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'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.

"Maybe that's all true".Not maybe ,it was all true.
That's not the point.The point is one was one established club with an history of financial issues almost since its inception.Been around then for 28 years.They grabbed a lifeline from Rupert rightly or wrongly.

Also whether you may or may not be aware, the Sharks were in line to be axed in the future by the ARL,as part of their expansion/consolidation strategy.A hell of a strong reason for jumping ship, compared to the Reds.

As compared to one who had not even given the chance for the ARL ink contract to dry,dceided in its wisdom to grab the cash and run.Why did they feel the necessity to do so ,immediately after the ARL invite?
I'm fully aware if people offer big financials .it's hard to knock back.

If you wish to discuss morality,I suggest one did it out of necessity rightly or wrongly and one out of pure convenient haste.There is no way the Reds were in the financial ditch the Sharks were in.

If you think that is hypocritical so be it.But if you cannot see the different situations pertaining ATT for either club, then you don't; fully understand the financial implications running then.I was at the coal face League club in 95 when the Sharks decided to go to SL.It was all spelt out the reasonings for teh clubs decision.

Yet,how can it be hypocritical when I spelt out on these threads where my position was ATT and later.You'd have a point if I maintained the decision was still the right one,I have admitted it was a huge mistake and did so in the late 90s .Hardly a Jonny come lately.

 

[taipan]

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

The Reds or the ARL?
IMO a person with basic understanding of costing,and knowing in advance they would be up for travel/accommodation,should have protested to the ARL.
"Hey wait on, if we are up for these costs ,you are giving us X amount in grants, we have X amount in sponsorship, and X amount from ticket sales and merchandise, the figures don't ring true.The individual visiting clubs or the ARL with cash in the Bank,should at the very least subsidise these visiting clubs travel and accommodation.We are a club penalised because of the tyranny of distance."

I will restate my view.
1) the ARL should only have introduced 2 teams in 95 not 4.I have no preference then.The fact the ARL brought in 4,made SL even more inviting .
2)If the Reds had stuck with the ARL and yes Warriors and Cowboys SL would have been stuffed.The ARL was ready to turf the Sharks in their long term consolidation strategy.They then were excpenndable,Gow knew it,and one of the reasons they went to SL,rightly or wrongly.

 

[beave]

The Reds or the ARL?
IMO a person with basic understanding of costing,and knowing in advance they would be up for travel/accommodation,should have protested to the ARL.
"Hey wait on, if we are up for these costs ,you are giving us X amount in grants, we have X amount in sponsorship, and X amount from ticket sales and merchandise, the figures don't ring true.The individual visiting clubs or the ARL with cash in the Bank,should at the very least subsidise these visiting clubs travel and accommodation.We are a club penalised because of the tyranny of distance."

I will restate my view.
1) the ARL should only have introduced 2 teams in 95 not 4.I have no preference then.The fact the ARL brought in 4,made SL even more inviting .
2)If the Reds had stuck with the ARL and yes Warriors and Cowboys SL would have been stuffed.The ARL was ready to turf the Sharks in their long term consolidation strategy.They then were excpenndable,Gow knew it,and one of the reasons they went to SL,rightly or wrongly.

I’ll try and find my cowboys 20 year book today and find the quote about the change of travel funding AFTER the new 4 teams were accepted into the league. I’m positive it’s in there mate.

 

[taipan]

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!

You'd get lost in the mangroves,and miss out on a ticket.

LOL.You had zero reason to join SL, and should have protested to the ARL about the costs, your mob didn't.
When your mob decided to go to SL.your crowds took a hit, and so did ours.

You have zero idea,the ARL had the Sharks in their sights for relocation down the line, the club under Gow grabbed that SL lifeline.Your mob was in (via teh ARL)for the long term.

The differences like your understanding of picture ,are as wide as the Sydney Heads.
You see if the Sharks had decided to stay with the ARL,they were really a short term proposition, whereas if the Reds had stayed you'd still be there.

 

[taipan]

I’ll try and find my cowboys 20 year book today and find the quote about the change of travel funding AFTER the new 4 teams were accepted into the league. I’m positive it’s in there mate.

Thanks mate.
Whatever the decision on travel costs, the ARL or the clubs should have sorted it out, form the beginning.
IMO it is criminal, any club ,in a national comp,should have to pay for all visiting teams.That should be the onus of the code admin.

 

[The Great Dane]

"Maybe that's all true".Not maybe ,it was all true.
That's not the point.The point is one was one established club with an history of financial issues almost since its inception.Been around then for 28 years.They grabbed a lifeline from Rupert rightly or wrongly.

Also whether you may or may not be aware, the Sharks were in line to be axed in the future by the ARL,as part of their expansion/consolidation strategy.A hell of a strong reason for jumping ship, compared to the Reds.

As compared to one who had not even given the chance for the ARL ink contract to dry,dceided in its wisdom to grab the cash and run.Why did they feel the necessity to do so ,immediately after the ARL invite?
I'm fully aware if people offer big financials .it's hard to knock back.

If you wish to discuss morality,I suggest one did it out of necessity rightly or wrongly and one out of pure convenient haste.There is no way the Reds were in the financial ditch the Sharks were in.

If you think that is hypocritical so be it.But if you cannot see the different situations pertaining ATT for either club, then you don't; fully understand the financial implications running then.I was at the coal face League club in 95 when the Sharks decided to go to SL.It was all spelt out the reasonings for teh clubs decision.

Yet,how can it be hypocritical when I spelt out on these threads where my position was ATT and later.You'd have a point if I maintained the decision was still the right one,I have admitted it was a huge mistake and did so in the late 90s .Hardly a Jonny come lately.

Financially they like every other SL club (minus Bris) were up sh!t creek without a paddle unless a lot of things went their way.

Roughly %50 of start up businesses go broke in under 5 years, it's near %80 when you look at a decade, they were already under funded before they had a bunch of other expenses dropped in their lap by the ARL, starting the club was a risk, just like starting any new business is a risk, and just like any new business owners they didn't realise what they had got themselves into until they were in it. They were under prepared, didn't have enough start up funds, and couldn't expect any help from the ARL, when a group comes along and promises them the world.

When you boil it down their situation was no different then the Sharks or the Raiders, they were cash strapped, knocking on heavens door, and they took the deal to secure their future, how long they were or weren't in the competition makes no difference, and the suggestion that the Reds weren't in the "financial ditch the Sharks were in" assumes that they had sufficient start up funds and is patently false, cause if they weren't in such a bad financial position then they'd still be around today like the Sharks .

BTW, you're renouncing of the Sharks decision doesn't change the fact that you're being hypocritical, your hypocrisy is in you making out that the Sharks were/are in a morally superior position to the Reds despite doing the exact same thing.

 

[taipan]

Financially they like every other SL club (minus Bris) were up sh!t creek without a paddle unless a lot of things went their way.

Roughly %50 of start up businesses go broke in under 5 years, it's near %80 when you look at a decade, they were already under funded before they had a bunch of other expenses dropped in their lap by the ARL, starting the club was a risk, just like starting any new business is a risk, and just like any new business owners they didn't realise what they had got themselves into until they were in it. They were under prepared, didn't have enough start up funds, and couldn't expect any help from the ARL, when a group comes along and promises them the world.

When you boil it down their situation was no different then the Sharks or the Raiders, they were cash strapped, knocking on heavens door, and they took the deal to secure their future, how long they were or weren't in the competition makes no difference, and the suggestion that the Reds weren't in the "financial ditch the Sharks were in" assumes that they had sufficient start up funds and is patently false, cause if they weren't in such a bad financial position then they'd still be around today like the Sharks .

BTW, you're renouncing of the Sharks decision doesn't change the fact that you're being hypocritical, your hypocrisy is in you making out that the Sharks were/are in a morally superior position to the Reds despite doing the exact same thing.

I'm not going to continue to help stuff up a thread,but I will say this the clubs in Sydney other than the Sharks who all went to SL,were not in line for relocation,the Sharks were end of story.The Raiders were in absolutely no danger of relocation.And the Redswere just invited to the"party".

Sport is " supposedly a not for profit set up", the proceeds going toward the advancement of the code.Ideally to make a profit for future ,but at least break even.
And they(Sharks) were in a morally superior position, years of financial turmoil compared to a club with no such history.One knowing they were in line for extinction,the other a new kid on the blocks with no such threat..
A fight for long term survival compared to a new arrival.
Hypocrisy is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm not beholding to your interpretation.

 

[Stallion]

Thanks mate.
Whatever the decision on travel costs, the ARL or the clubs should have sorted it out, form the beginning.
IMO it is criminal, any club ,in a national comp,should have to pay for all visiting teams.That should be the onus of the code admin.

The most disturbing aspect of this information is that the Sharks were not in the future plans of the ARL. I do recall alot of rumour mongering by News ltd media like the Daily Telegraph undermining the confidence and security of many clubs at this stage. Perhaps the ARL were taking credence to the "crap" talk from News ltd sources. The Cronulla Sutherland Sharks had already contributed significant colour and drama to this great football competition with some great and epic grand final appearances. Such moves envisaging possible relocation of that club by the ARL is to my way of thinking 'shear lunacy '. In observing this I also note that another rival code has expanded exponentially in a way that hasn't ruined the fabric of its established foundation clubs. A much less worthy code but with a more positive agenda 'The AFL'. This sport has 18 clubs now and is posturing for two more in its strategic growth plan. Something the current rugby league administrators need to take on board. After all we are talking about a supreme sports product in rugby league : being easy to watch and enjoyable along with challenging to play? The game deserves exponential growth not implosive divisiveness. Well done Taipan on your insightfull and honorable/respectful stance.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Of the Sydney clubs it may have been the leagues intention at the time to earmark Balmain (Melbourne) and St.George (Adelaide) for relocation going by these teams playing consistently in these cities.Or that both were popular clubs and could help sell the game in these very staunch AFL cities.

Dragons played a game in Adelaide every year from 1991-95 and Balmain played 2 games in Melbourne in 1994.

The Dragons nearly merged with the Roosters in 1998 and Tigers merged with Wests in 1999.

 

[taipan]

Of the Sydney clubs it may have been the leagues intention at the time to earmark Balmain (Melbourne) and St.George (Adelaide) for relocation going by these teams playing consistently in these cities.Or that both were popular clubs and could help sell the game in these very staunch AFL cities.

Dragons played a game in Adelaide every year from 1991-95 and Balmain played 2 games in Melbourne in 1994.

The Dragons nearly merged with the Roosters in 1998 and Tigers merged with Wests in 1999.

Rumours I heard were Sharks to Perth and/or Brisbane,remembering of course the Crusher's entry ATT.

 

[beave]

@taipan

So i found my Cowboys 20year book and I got it way wrong. Here is a pic of the para that explains it

$800k at 1995 prices IMO would be well over a mil, probably closer to a 1.3-1.5mil in todays terms. f**king ridiculous to lump that on us or any of the expansion teams.

Massive apologies on giving you duff info mate, my bad.

 

[LeagueXIII]

You can actually see with this sort of financial pressure why the Cowboys may have turned to SL.

 

[taipan]

@taipan

So i found my Cowboys 20year book and I got it way wrong. Here is a pic of the para that explains it

$800k at 1995 prices IMO would be well over a mil, probably closer to a 1.3-1.5mil in todays terms. f**king ridiculous to lump that on us or any of the expansion teams.

Massive apologies on giving you duff info mate, my bad.

That's Ok mate.I am not immune from getting it wrong now and then, but I was pretty sure on this one.

How the hell any new club could be expected to absorb this sort of cost and compete with other clubs ,not under the same impost is beyond me.
The other clubs then,anmd to a lesser extent now held too much sway on the code's admin.

 

[Pedge1971]

That's Ok mate.I am not immune from getting it wrong now and then, but I was pretty sure on this one.

How the hell any new club could be expected to absorb this sort of cost and compete with other clubs ,not under the same impost is beyond me.
The other clubs then,anmd to a lesser extent now held too much sway on the code's admin.

They still do massively now. But it is the concentration of the Broncos, Bulldogs, Roosters and Storm. Penrith via Gus get a bit of a shout in but are still playing by the other 4 clubs rules.

Everyone else has to fall into line hence why the inequity today exists.

Watch the denials....

 

[taipan]

They still do massively now. But it is the concentration of the Broncos, Bulldogs, Roosters and Storm. Penrith via Gus get a bit of a shout in but are still playing by the other 4 clubs rules.

Everyone else has to fall into line hence why the inequity today exists.

Watch the denials....

Think you can narrow it down to Roosters ,Storm & Broncos.All with high profile businessmen behind them.

 

[siv]

That's Ok mate.I am not immune from getting it wrong now and then, but I was pretty sure on this one.

How the hell any new club could be expected to absorb this sort of cost and compete with other clubs ,not under the same impost is beyond me.
The other clubs then,anmd to a lesser extent now held too much sway on the code's admin.

Because other clubs couldnt pay for flights all over the country either

But I beleive it was only for 3 or 5 years