What was the reason...

[aids]

i kind of felt that it was more of a flex for news ltd. to show that they were more powerful than the ARL
they negtioated terms, and a lot of teams died to save face for a corperation.
the comp was strong when the ARL brought in 4 new teams at once, is league even back to the level of populatrity is was in the mid 90's yet?

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

the comp was strong when the ARL brought in 4 new teams at once, is league even back to the level of populatrity is was in the mid 90's yet?

Not nation wide, no way.

Could these clubs have survived if they rode out the tough times post SL?

No it was either they merge or just die and their territory goes to another club, like with Norths now. There are still to many Sydney teams and in the future more clubs will either move, die or merge. Its good for the growth of the game but it really is a sad thing to have to go through. I went to the marches to town hall for Souths because its Souths and they deserve to be in the competition.

ATM every Sydney club deserves to be in the comp but the decreasing population of the Eastern Suburbs, due to the costs of living in the god damn place, could see the Roosters and possbly Manly relocate. They are the next to move I think. (unless Crowe and Holmes decide to pull out of Souths for it being non profitable, dont think that wont happen, its what businessmen are like)

 

[Raider_69]

A SL/ARL war thread? Awesome, its about time, its been about 8 weeks since the last one!

 

[Gee_Up]

They cut the number of teams as they did not want to invest in the development of a larger area. They minimised the league teams so they could manage it more effectively as their approach is CONTROL not expansion.

Leagues fans are predominantly working class. Rugby League turned into big business as soon as two major media companies wanted rights to the game. Everyone suffered except the two media companies (who still hold the games development to ransom) and ungrateful players.

I know plenty of people who would rather just watch the local A grade in park footy. They are inspired to see people play their guts out for nothing- it's what made the game special.

Now we have millionaire players who don't honour contracts, talk rubbish in their own sports columns, are obviously so juiced up by performance enhancing drugs they look like bodybuilders and the working class fans don't relate to them.

 

[bobmar28]

Not nation wide, no way.



No it was either they merge or just die and their territory goes to another club, like with Norths now. There are still to many Sydney teams and in the future more clubs will either move, die or merge. Its good for the growth of the game but it really is a sad thing to have to go through. I went to the marches to town hall for Souths because its Souths and they deserve to be in the competition.

ATM every Sydney club deserves to be in the comp but the decreasing population of the Eastern Suburbs, due to the costs of living in the god damn place, could see the Roosters and possbly Manly relocate. They are the next to move I think. (unless Crowe and Holmes decide to pull out of Souths for it being non profitable, dont think that wont happen, its what businessmen are like)

The decreasing population of the Eastern Suburbs means that there are several clubs chasing the remaining league fans in the area. But the Sea Eagles? They have the whole North side.

 

[Gee_Up]

I am critical of clubs not investing in juniors but I think the major failure to promote and develop junior areas falls on the NRL board. They have let Country Rugby League down, left the Central Coast to be taken by Soccer and not promoted Junior Rugby League in all areas and they are puppets that bend to the will of TV without ever negotiating. A blight on the game- they should all be ashamed and embarrassed by their lack of function.

 

[bobmar28]

They cut the number of teams as they did not want to invest in the development of a larger area. They minimised the league teams so they could manage it more effectively as their approach is CONTROL not expansion.

Leagues fans are predominantly working class. Rugby League turned into big business as soon as two major media companies wanted rights to the game. Everyone suffered except the two media companies (who still hold the games development to ransom) and ungrateful players.

I know plenty of people who would rather just watch the local A grade in park footy. They are inspired to see people play their guts out for nothing- it's what made the game special.

Now we have millionaire players who don't honour contracts, talk rubbish in their own sports columns, are obviously so juiced up by performance enhancing drugs they look like bodybuilders and the working class fans don't relate to them.

Working class fans don't relate to them? That would be why league is huge in working class areas like Western Sydney (with a population of two and a half million) and dying in upper class places like the Eastern Suburbs.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

News Ltd wanted 14 because it thought it could cut costs (which it was paying for indirectly) while still selling enough TV subscriptions. I think the official line was it wanted a high standard comp though. Plus it might have wanted to kill off the likes of Souths for spite. Anyway, it was all News. It was part of the peace deal (along with everything else that favoured News like them owning the bloody game for 20 years).

They then came up with dodgy criteria that was just a front for News kicking out the clubs it didn't like. That's why only ARL clubs were forced to merge. Funny how SL clubs never seemed too worried about missing the cut.

Personally, I hated the whole thing but in retrospect it hasn't been as damaging as it could have, purely by good fortune rather than good design. I think Balmain and especially Wests would have been farked without the merger. One or both of them might have survived but I doubt either would be terribly strong and they certainly wouldn't have won anything. Norths were doomed after the Grahame Park thing anyway, which was mostly News' fault too, and Manly needed a kick in the arse. Manly have come out stronger thanks to privatisation and Norths have been sacrificed. Illawarra just weren't viable at the time and I don't think that merger really had much to do with the criteria and 14 teams etc. As for the likes of Perth and Adelaide. It's simple. They were owned by News (for all intents) and when they'd served their purpose and cost News enough cash they just threw them away. Hunter too, although that was the right thing to do seeing as they were just SL's Newcastle substitute. Anyway Souths winning the court case ruined News' dream thankfully and that meant 15 teams which helped then push for a 16th, thus we have the GC. It's worked out okay in the end.

 

[LeagueXIII]

I love how people say there are too many teams in Sydney, yet we use to have 11 clubs and now we have 9 and there are still too many? Yet AFL want to put another team here. Don't they know there are too many teams?? How about instead of running away from the problem we become proactive and grow the game? Just like they use to in the 80's and 90's?

The game isn't popular in the East? Souths say only 5% of their support is there anyway, that's why they moved games to ANZ/Telstra and the Roosters crowds have gone from 7500 to 12500 in 20 years. 20 years ago if the Roosters averaged 12500 this would have been considered good whereas last year it was poor. 3 years ago they averaged 18,500.
So there is support there.

RL started from working class roots but wasn't there a report saying league's support was top in all demographics. It is supported by everyone no matter what the background, afterall the game does sell it's fair share of corporate boxes.

The myth that clubs either merge of die was a fear tactic by News Ltd to cull numbers pure and simple. Souths are the pefect example, they rode out the tough times, replaced their old ex-football management with professional people now people are watching as they reach for their true potential.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Personally, I hated the whole thing but in retrospect it hasn't been as damaging as it could have, purely by good fortune rather than good design

As John McEnroe would say, "you can not be serious".

It seems that because Wests Tigers won a premiership everything is OK, not every team can win. If Balmain had bought Tim Sheens and Benji and Prince I dare say they would have pulled out of their down period. Sport goes in cycles Balmain were up in the late 60's then down in the 70's up again in the 80's and down again in the 90's. Look at Parramatta's cycle.

With today's environment of salary caps (evening of competition) and the amount of revenue (though the game is not getting anywhere near what it deserves) coming in that clubs such as Norths, Balmain and Illawarra could have survived. Remember Balmain rated higher on the criteria than Penrith and Cronulla.

Manly have come out stronger thanks to privatisation

My point exactly, rather than kicking teams out, get rid of their under performing managements (usually ex-footballers) and get professional people in. Clubs are starting to do it eg. Souths and beginning to look for other sources of revenue rather than pokie money eg. property as Souths, Balmain, Cronulla etc.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Working class fans don't relate to them? That would be why league is huge in working class areas like Western Sydney (with a population of two and a half million) and dying in upper class places like the Eastern Suburbs.

I think the feel good factor/perception of it being the in thing was a major casualty of SL. During the Tina Turner years the game had these qualities and so the support was there, however with all the bickering of SL this was lost and has never been replaced. Instead this is where the AFL took over, they gave this demographic that feeling they were looking for. This is an area RL needs to rebuild.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

The decreasing population of the Eastern Suburbs means that there are several clubs chasing the remaining league fans in the area. But the Sea Eagles? They have the whole North side.

I dont think the whole Northern side is to comfortable with following Manly, I think they still would like the Bears in the comp. If you mean the CC as the northern side thats very untrue because they clearly want their own team.

and dying in upper class places like the Eastern Suburbs.

Didnt I just say that?

The game isn't popular in the East?

I never said that, I said that the population of the eastern suburbs would shrink and therefor have less local support. I belive that once this generation of Rooster supporters pass away, the supporter bas will drop dramatically.

 

[wittyfan]

Remember Balmain rated higher on the criteria than Penrith and Cronulla.

In fact they didn't:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/13/1092340470384.html

 

[East Coast Tiger]

As John McEnroe would say, "you can not be serious".

It seems that because Wests Tigers won a premiership everything is OK, not every team can win. If Balmain had bought Tim Sheens and Benji and Prince I dare say they would have pulled out of their down period. Sport goes in cycles Balmain were up in the late 60's then down in the 70's up again in the 80's and down again in the 90's. Look at Parramatta's cycle.

With today's environment of salary caps (evening of competition) and the amount of revenue (though the game is not getting anywhere near what it deserves) coming in that clubs such as Norths, Balmain and Illawarra could have survived. Remember Balmain rated higher on the criteria than Penrith and Cronulla.



My point exactly, rather than kicking teams out, get rid of their under performing managements (usually ex-footballers) and get professional people in. Clubs are starting to do it eg. Souths and beginning to look for other sources of revenue rather than pokie money eg. property as Souths, Balmain, Cronulla etc.

Today's environment, what use is that years after the fact? Maybe Blamian, Wests, Illawarra etc could survive NOW but could they have survived 2000-2005?

It's not just about winning premierships either. Wests Tigers not only won the comp but get big crowds and are financially solid. Balmain and Wests (especially) wouldn't have gone close to winning a comp by themselves, would have continued to get poor crowds and would have struggled financially. Balmain wouldn't have signed blokes like Prince because they didn't have the money and they didn't have the drawing power. That's why they struggled back then and it's why they would have continued to struggle. Balmain knew they had to merge and they were right. The game is better off in the long run.

 

[flamin]

Today's environment, what use is that years after the fact? Maybe Blamian, Wests, Illawarra etc could survive NOW but could they have survived 2000-2005?

The one I never understood was St George's choice to merge. Surely they could have survived? They may have saved first class football going extinct in Wollongong but for that they sacrificed the continuing of probably the proudest club history in rugby league.

 

[knights04]

Broncos were mad not to merge with the Crushers. "Thanks, but no thanks." :lol:

 

[LeagueXIII]

St.George's decision was a disgrace and just about sums modern RL up. Other sports protect ad respect their traditions and history, we sell ours to the highest bidder.

Anyone for a Kagaroo Tour?

 

[knights04]

Manly's decision was great. No sign of them for three years which was heaven.

 

[LeagueXIII]

I disagree East Coast Tiger, we too easily believe the BS we were told by people who had a hidden agenda. No other options were explored. If any were what were they? Did the league ever step into help knowing full well that within 10 years the money would be back in the game? So if the NRL had the sport as it's No.1 priority I do strngly believe they would have survived, but we know where the money and priorities lay. It's was basically like offering redundancies and cuting back as most corporations do to save money.

It's not just about winning premierships either. Wests Tigers not only won the comp but get big crowds and are financially solid.

Wests Tigers were a basket case until Sheens got there and brought credibility to the club. With professional management and the incoming leagues club development there is NO reason why Balmain couldn't stand alone.
Regarding crowds, Wests Tigers in their first 5 years drew an average off:

2004 - 13,925
2003 - 8,993
2002 - 10,478
2001 - 9,294
2000 - 12,124

Hardly sensational, considering they had two clubs to draw from.

Last season they averaged 16,766 losing 2500 per match on previous year. Also they have the advantage of the Telstra Stadium which has way better facilities than Leichhardt Oval. I would imagine also that it would be more accesible to their support in the Western Suburbs assuming like Souths they have a large following in this area. I think most clubs have benefitted from Telstra's use crowd wise.

So Wests Tigers averaged 16,766 last year. Compare this to Balmain and Wests combined averages in their last two years:

1999 - 19,053 teams finished 15th and 17th
1998 - 17,877 teams finished 13th and 20th

Remembering the game today is structured to even out all clubs, thus more games are expected to be contests as opposed to past years.

So the WT haven't grown it at all, even after winning a premiership and making finals.

Balmain wouldn't have signed blokes like Prince because they didn't have the money and they didn't have the drawing power. That's why they struggled back then and it's why they would have continued to struggle. Balmain knew they had to merge and they were right. The game is better off in the long run.

Of course they would, why did Wests Tigers? They were a joke of a club, remember Hoppa? It all comes down to Tim Sheens giving them the credibility they needed, Balmain could easily have signed Sheens (he was lookin fora job afterall), the players would have followed they could easily have played games at Leichhardt and Telstra and they could have nurtured their huge fan base. Remember clubs are only starting to get off their arses now. Balmain have as much potenetial as Souths.

The game is poorer for them not being there, the same with Illawarra and Norths. How's league going on the North Shore? An area that once drew an average of 15,116 per game with no club now so they follow union and AFL, now that really is great for RL?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I disagree East Coast Tiger, we too easily believe the BS we were told by people who had a hidden agenda. No other options were explored. If any were what were they? Did the league ever step into help knowing full well that within 10 years the money would be back in the game? So if the NRL had the sport as it's No.1 priority I do strngly believe they would have survived, but we know where the money and priorities lay. It's was basically like offering redundancies and cuting back as most corporations do to save money.



Wests Tigers were a basket case until Sheens got there and brought credibility to the club. With professional management and the incoming leagues club development there is NO reason why Balmain couldn't stand alone.
Regarding crowds, Wests Tigers in their first 5 years drew an average off:

2004 - 13,925
2003 - 8,993
2002 - 10,478
2001 - 9,294
2000 - 12,124

Hardly sensational, considering they had two clubs to draw from.

Last season they averaged 16,766 losing 2500 per match on previous year. Also they have the advantage of the Telstra Stadium which has way better facilities than Leichhardt Oval. I would imagine also that it would be more accesible to their support in the Western Suburbs assuming like Souths they have a large following in this area. I think most clubs have benefitted from Telstra's use crowd wise.

So Wests Tigers averaged 16,766 last year. Compare this to Balmain and Wests combined averages in their last two years:

1999 - 19,053 teams finished 15th and 17th
1998 - 17,877 teams finished 13th and 20th

Remembering the game today is structured to even out all clubs, thus more games are expected to be contests as opposed to past years.

So the WT haven't grown it at all, even after winning a premiership and making finals.



Of course they would, why did Wests Tigers? They were a joke of a club, remember Hoppa? It all comes down to Tim Sheens giving them the credibility they needed, Balmain could easily have signed Sheens (he was lookin fora job afterall), the players would have followed they could easily have played games at Leichhardt and Telstra and they could have nurtured their huge fan base. Remember clubs are only starting to get off their arses now. Balmain have as much potenetial as Souths.

The game is poorer for them not being there, the same with Illawarra and Norths. How's league going on the North Shore? An area that once drew an average of 15,116 per game with no club now so they follow union and AFL, now that really is great for RL?

Wests Tigers may not have drawn big crowds in their early years but compared to Balmain and Wests they did pretty well. And they grew. Whether you put that down to Sheens or not, I don't think Balmain or Wests would have been in any position to build a strong club the way the Wests Tigers have. I think you forget how poor both these clubs were as stand alone entities. They couldn't compete in a comp with standards lower than they are now. They might have as much potential as Souths but which club doesn't? Any club COULD lift its game the way Souths have if they too could find a world famous actor and a rich businessman to buy them but what is the likelyhood of that? And if that is what is required to make them a successful club they'd be pretty much stuffed. Balmain had no juniors, a facility that wasn't considered up to scratch, a poor squad, not enough money or draw to improve the squad (especially with more competition for players) and a league that rightly or wrongly wasn't prepared to pay out an extra revenue to weak clubs in a flooded Sydney market. The game would literally be poorer for having them there now. Every club costs the NRL about $3mil a year or whatever the grant is these days and some just wouldn't be worth that. News wanted less Sydney clubs back then and they funded the NRL. Even now, if the NRL could bring back Balmain and Wests and Norths I don't think I would support it. Why spend about $9mil a year on these clubs when they wouldn't produce that for the game and when that money could be spent elsewhere. The game does exist outside Sydney you know. If people in one pocket of Sydney get the sh*ts because they haven't got a suburban team to follow and they go off to union or AFL instead that's no reason to throw vital revenue at keeping such a club. This theory that fans switched to the other codes en masse because their RL club was canned is nothing but a myth anyway. Some might have taken up following other sports but most wouldn't have. I'd sooner see money and franchises given to areas with no club but with real growth potential. The Gold Coast has been a worthwhile expansion for the NRL, more Sydney clubs would not. If they want to bring the Bears back on the Central Coast that might work but only if they are a Central Coast club. That is the future of the game. Balmain etc is the past.