Todd Greenberg has got to go!

[LeagueXIII]

You are correct, the league at the time had a policy of natural attrition.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

You are correct, the league at the time had a policy of natural attrition.

Yeh, this is my problem...

Hoping everything conveniently falls into place so you dont have to actually make a hard decision is not what most people would call "good leadership".

Natural attrition is what got us a Sydney-heavy comp we have now, and why we lost so many expansion areas. Maybe something more deliberate and thought out was the better option...

 

[LeagueXIII]

Disagree, having lived through it it was a good policy saving the massive damage caused to the sport. I would swap todays leadership for the Arko/Quayle partnership in a heartbeat.

It is no coincidence rugby league was the no 1 football code in Australia under their leadership.

It was a Sydney comp because it is what it grew from (just as the AFL is a Melbourne comp) afterall realistically it could never have grown from a Brisbane club comp. I also think you are being harsh as they grew the game, infact they had areas that we have since lost and trying to re-enter.

1988 - Newcastle, Brisbane and Gold Coast

1995 - Perth, Auckland, Brisbane 2, North Qld

 

[Tiger5150]

Maybe they would have followed through on the criteria and booted teams, seems more likely they were just hoping teams would fall over for them (like Newtown and Wests in the 80s)...

My criticism is that they went ahead with expansion and only said "maybe were cut some teams". To me, that says they didnt have the stomach for a tough decision.

Its not like they didnt have the opportunity. All they needed to do was create a level above the existing comps (a Super League, if you will) and only invite the teams wanted. 1988 would have been the time to do it, instead of just introducing the Broncos to the NSWRL

My point is that they DID do what you are saying above. Laid out new rules and were going to cut teams, didnt get the chance due to SL.

 

[Tiger5150]

You are correct, the league at the time had a policy of natural attrition.

Im sorry, no this is incorrect. The ARL had a policy in place where teams would be culled if they didnt meet criteria set out. Tough criteria, same as the NRL reinstatement ones. This is NOT natural attrition, this is setting a high bar and keeping the ones that make it.

Its a gold plated fact. We had to endure Sydney Tigers, Sydney Bulldogs & Sydney City Roosters because of it,

 

[LeagueXIII]

Don't rub out Sydney teams: Arthurson
LEAGUE

• July 31, 2008 12:00am
• by BY STEVE RICKETTS
• Source: CourierMail

FORMER Australian Rugby League supremo Ken Arthurson warned against culling Sydney teams in response to French rugby union raids.

Gold Coast-based Arthurson said rugby league was "a tough old bird" that would weather the latest storm caused by Bulldogs forward Sonny Bill Williams walking out on the club for a big money deal in France.

The man at the helm of the ARL when Super League began its raids in 1995, Arthurson said he deplored the circumstances of Williams' defection but boasted he was replaceable.

"It's too early for people to be pushing the panic button," he said. "It's difficult for our clubs to increase the salary cap because the money simply isn't there.

"Cutting teams is not the answer. People say you have to look to the future but the past indicates what the future should be.

"Tradition is very, very hard to get and if you get rid of it you get rid of a very big positive for the game.

"There are a lot of terrific young players in our game and we are developing them all the time.

"Sonny Bill is a great player but rugby league is a tough old bird and it has weathered a lot of storms and it will weather this one. It will keep producing champions and it will survive because it is such a great game."

Arthurson said he was interested to read The Courier-Mail's hypothetical "Ultra League" article on Tuesday but was dumbfounded the proposed streamlined competition did not include a team for Sydney's northern suburbs where his old club the Manly Sea Eagles are flagbearers.



"It's a huge area of Sydney and it would be too stupid for words not to have a team there," he said.

Arthurson said if he was still in charge of the game he would set up a works committee to look at ways of generating more finances.

He said the game was never in better shape than at the start of the 1995 season when Super League's raids began.

"We had the other codes on the back foot and whether we like it or not, the game has never fully recovered," Arthurson said.

The ARL-backed Crushers were victims of the Super League war and their former CEO Darryl Van de Velde believes the NRL needs a clear vision for the next 100 years.

"They're just reacting to things now instead of being pro-active," he said.

Broncos CEO Bruno Cullen agreed it was not time for panic or knee-jerk reactions. "Certainly the players now are pretty well managed although I don't know whether Sonny Bill is," he said.

 

[Tiger5150]

I was referring to the Arthurson/Quayle years.

The criteria was post super league and was manipulated to see off the ARL clubs they didn't want.

No no no no no no no no........

Ill repost here what I posted a page back. The criteria that were applied Post SL were first introduced by ARL under Quayle/Arko. Set of rules laid out by ARL and they said if you didnt make these criteria, you are out. They were introduced in 1994 with the intention (from memory) of culling clubs in 1998 but they never got there because of SL. This is the reason that Balmain became the Sydney Tigers playing out of Parra Stadium etc. I was there at the meeting.

as I previously said...."I was a voting member of Balmain District Rugby League Club and in 1994 there was a special meeting held where Arthurson spoke to the voting members ( as he did to all of the clubs) and explained to Balmain that the ARL was introducing a set of criteria by which all of the clubs would be assessed. Arthurson (and the ARL ) said if your club didnt meet ALL of these criteria, you would NOT be invited to compete in the ARL. From memory some of the criteria included, $10M annual turnover, 10K average home crowds, certain basic standards for corporate clients etc. It was at this meeting and as a direct consequence of these ARL guidelines and criteria that Balmain changed to the SYdney Tigers, changed their jersey to that god awful thing with a purple stripe and started playing out of Parra Stadium. Canterbury changed to Sydney Bulldogs, Easts changed to Sydney City Roosters. All of these changes were a direct consequence of the changes the ARL were bringing in to modernise and push the comp forward. Two years later News step in and try to take over."

 

[LeagueXIII]

Im sorry, no this is incorrect. The ARL had a policy in place where teams would be culled if they didnt meet criteria set out. Tough criteria, same as the NRL reinstatement ones. This is NOT natural attrition, this is setting a high bar and keeping the ones that make it.

Its a gold plated fact. We had to endure Sydney Tigers, Sydney Bulldogs & Sydney City Roosters because of it,

The league did have a criteria or minimum standards guideline but it was more about growing the clubs and game then culling numbers because finances were low as super league did.

Their policy was always natural attrition or look to relocation but by choice and not wholesale changes that do nothing but damage the game.

 

[Tiger5150]

The league did have a criteria or minimum standards guideline but it was more about growing the clubs and game then culling numbers because finances were low as super league did.

Their policy was always natural attrition or look to relocation but by choice and not wholesale changes that do nothing but damage the game.

Im sorry, but this is simply not true. As I said, I was at the meeting, heard it myself from Arko's mouth.

This abomination was the result

 

[LeagueXIII]

If you were at the meeting I can't argue with that. But I did say the league had a criteria or minimum standards. Who was in charge of the Tigers at the time?

My point is it is a tragedy we have lost an iconic name like Balmain. The league was obviously trying to get clubs upto scratch, the league then was obviously pushing for management of clubs in a more professional manner. The only problem with Balmain was timing they had come out of a decade with great players and were trying to rebuild as Parra were.
But given the current climate with the grant from the league, strict management of the salary cap, better management I can't see why Balmain with their history and support could not be a strong club.

 

[siv]

My bigger issue is what is the charter if the NRL within the ARLC

1 - to run and oversea the management of all ARL and NZRL and APRLF competitions

2 - to run and oversea the management of all ARL competitions

3 - run and manage the ARL elite competitions

 

[BuffaloRules]

Yeh, this is my problem...

Hoping everything conveniently falls into place so you dont have to actually make a hard decision is not what most people would call "good leadership".

Natural attrition is what got us a Sydney-heavy comp we have now, and why we lost so many expansion areas. Maybe something more deliberate and thought out was the better option...

They tried to cut Wests and Newtown in 1983...

Newtown inevitably accepted their fate but Wests took legal action to stay in the comp and won...

Cutting teams is not as easy to do as you think, as underscored by what happened when Souths were chopped 15 years later...

 

[siv]

Im sorry, no this is incorrect. The ARL had a policy in place where teams would be culled if they didnt meet criteria set out. Tough criteria, same as the NRL reinstatement ones. This is NOT natural attrition, this is setting a high bar and keeping the ones that make it.

Its a gold plated fact. We had to endure Sydney Tigers, Sydney Bulldogs & Sydney City Roosters because of it,

Interested to hear more on this

When did meeting with Balmain-Arko occur ?

Early in 1994 or late in 1994 ?

There was a undercurrent of SL as reported in the RLW during 1994 also

The forced PMT pay-tv split government decision was handed down in 1993

 

[Tiger5150]

Interested to hear more on this

When did meeting with Balmain-Arko occur ?

Early in 1994 or late in 1994 ?

There was a undercurrent of SL as reported in the RLW during 1994 also

The forced PMT pay-tv split government decision was handed down in 1993

From memory, it was towards the end of the 94 season. In fact I know it must have been during that season because I was at the last game of the season at Leichhardt v Parra in pouring rain with 21K others because we all thought it was proabably our last game at Leichhardt.

That "undercurrent of SL" that was reported in RLW was probably exactly what I am talking about, It was pretty full on. There was no softly softly. Arko was explicit to the members of the club, you will not make it unless massive changes are made. The criteria I remember were:

1. Annual Turnover $ 10M
2. Average Home Crowd 10K
3. A certain minimum corporate facilities

There were many more ( some involving juniors and junior spend) but I remember these as the ones that Balmain where pushing it up hill to meet. I remember turnover (including massive leagues club grant) was around $7.5 and we were averaging about 7K at Leichhardt. no corporates at Leichhardt in those days.

Balmain changed their name to the Sydney Tigers with the reasoning given it was easier to sell to international sponsors than an obscure small suburb no one had heard of. Canterbury & Easts did the same in a fight to "own" the name. Moved to Parra Stadium to tick the corporate box box.

It all couldnt have come at a worse time for Balmain. A combination of poor management choices, Alan Jones coaching and a changing demographic in the local area as well as leagues club rules being changed at the time were all acting against Balmain but regardless of these outside influences, it was made clear to us that changes needed to be made to modernise the management of the club and changes were made.

Of course when the SL war hit it was all thrown out, jerseys changed back, name changed back and back to Leichhardt.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Disagree, having lived through it it was a good policy saving the massive damage caused to the sport. I would swap todays leadership for the Arko/Quayle partnership in a heartbeat.

It is no coincidence rugby league was the no 1 football code in Australia under their leadership.

It was a Sydney comp because it is what it grew from (just as the AFL is a Melbourne comp) afterall realistically it could never have grown from a Brisbane club comp. I also think you are being harsh as they grew the game, infact they had areas that we have since lost and trying to re-enter.

1988 - Newcastle, Brisbane and Gold Coast

1995 - Perth, Auckland, Brisbane 2, North Qld

Still brings me back to the more important point: Arko was such a wonderful boss, why were these expansion teams not sured on long term deals?

I do understand the appeal of natural attrition and if youre right about them being strick on the criteria then fine (im just saying, from all of the evidence, it looks like they didnt have the stomach to actually go through with it)

My problem is still with the fact that they didnt secure expansion areas. Why didnt they sign up all of the epanison areas to long term deals and declare "in 2000, we will have 6 sydney licence. Top 6 teams get 'em"?

All 7 of the expansion teams you mentioned were approached at some point by SL (5 went or the other 2 could have gone just as easily). Why sign the valuable teams to 1 year deals like the little Sydney clubs?

 

[BuffaloRules]

All 7 of the expansion teams you mentioned were approached at some point by SL (5 went or the other 2 could have gone just as easily). Why sign the valuable teams to 1 year deals like the little Sydney clubs?

You are starting to battle mate...

I think Gold Coast, Newcastle and Brisbane2 all remained in the ARL didn't they..

The details don't appear to be your thing..

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

They tried to cut Wests and Newtown in 1983...

Newtown inevitably accepted their fate but Wests took legal action to stay in the comp and won...

Cutting teams is not as easy to do as you think, as underscored by what happened when Souths were chopped 15 years later...

Yeh, it hard to cut teams out of a comp they have already been in, that why you create a new comp and offer promotions to only the best teams....

These teams dont have a legal right to be their and, if its dont right, the fans would laugh the clubs out of the room if they complained; imagine South Logan Magpies demanding a spot in the NRL or the Rabbitohs demanding a place in the State of Origin series. Establish a higher level comp, and this whole "i have a RIGHT to be here" arguement evaporates.

The time to do this was 1988 (another big missed opportunity/f*ck up from Arko). Rather than introducing the Broncos into the NSWRL, they SHOULD have formed the ARL (a comp above the NSWRL and QLD) and only invited the Sydney teams they wanted to keep and the BRL teams strong enough to compete.

In one go you have:
- removed all of the deadwood,
- Got a goob balance of Sydney and Brisbane clubs
- opened spots for later expansion (NQLD, NZ, WA)
- prevented anyone from complaining that they have been "demoted"

Instead, Arko decided to just keep going with the NSWRL, keep all the deadwood clubs, only have 1 Brisbane club and limit the space for expansion areas.

Arko is to root of just about every problem the NRL faces today. How can anyone call this good management?

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

You are starting to battle mate...

I think Gold Coast, Newcastle and Brisbane2 all remained in the ARL didn't they..

The details don't appear to be your thing..

Sorry, my thumb slipped....

Still doesnt really excuse the fact that Arko signed such bad contracts that all of the clubs could just walk out on the comp whenever they liked.

I guess dodging the point is easier than defending Arko's record though, hey.

 

[M2D2]

It is no coincidence rugby league was the no 1 football code in Australia under their leadership.

Errrrrr......Pretty sure the fumbleball always had better crowds, members, money. etc etc

 

[TheFrog]

The great news about the new women’s NRL competition. Although very positive news I could not see anywhere any reference to the NRL potentially being paid for providing this additional media content. Is Nine getting this extra content for free?

Did you notice the recent womens Ashes Test? NIne didn't broadcast it either. Nine, and presumably the other networks as well, don't see women's sport as a must have, at this point in time. Maybe in ten years time it will be different. It's a case of what they think the punters want to watch.