What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Will Tigers be bandwagoners in 2006?

KFC

Juniors
Messages
995
Anyone that perpetuates the "Bandwagon" theory is seriously insecure.

Who cares where they come from as long as they're going to games and buying merchandise.

Do you think any club, Wests Tigers in particular can afford to classify fans?

I've been to home games at Henson Park where there are 1000 people and I've been to home games at the SFS when there are 30,000.

No prizes for guessing which was more exciting.
 
Messages
16,034
Each year theres new flavour, like has been stated it puts bucks in the NRL's kitty so its never a bad thing.

I'd obviously prefer obsessed fans to be there instead, but as long as arses are in seats and more money becomes available to make the greatest game even greater then long live the FWF!
 

DJ1

Juniors
Messages
1,710
OVP said:
Those Panthers figures would be interesting if you showed the previous years figures. Their bandwagon was enormous in 2003, however i say good luck to them. Without these so-called "bandwagoners" that every stupid person seems to hate, the game would simply be dead. The more the merrier i say, we need them all.

Bandwagon supporters don't appear during the season in which a team wins the GF. Any increase during the season is due to dormant supporters who are simply coming out of the woodwork as their team is winning and the prospect of a premiership grows.

The bandwagoners usually miss out on the premiership as they were supporting another team. After the GF they change teams and then follow the premiers.

In Penriths case they had a dramatic rise from the cellar to being premiers. The increase in crowds was due to latent or dormant supporters, not band wagoners.

The Tigers are another good example of dormant support. As the season progressed the support was there. An interesting note will be how the diehard Balmain and Western Suburbs supporters who have not supported the Wests Tigers will now respond. Many would have relented during 2005, will the rest finally accept the merged entity as their team now they have a premiership?
 

Mean Dene

Juniors
Messages
76
I don't care if they jump on when we find success, so long as they don't jump off when we're going through the tough times.
 

DJ1

Juniors
Messages
1,710
KFC said:
Anyone that perpetuates the "Bandwagon" theory is seriously insecure.

Interesting,

In my time on the forums I would have to say that anyone who blindly dismisses the concept of "band wagon" supporters is usually (90% of the time) a Rooster supporter.

That would appear to demonstrate insecurity much more effectively than people having a general discussion on "band wagon supporters" in general.

Or am I reading this the wrong way and you are suggesting that "The Roosters" club is the one perpetuating the theory and is therefore insecure.

After all, the Roosters are the benchmark when it comes to band wagons.

Please don't take this as a critisism of yourself. You are obviously not a Rooster band wagoner. I would expect most would now be diehard Swan supporters.
 

Cockadoodledoo

First Grade
Messages
5,045
DJ1 said:
Bandwagon supporters don't appear during the season in which a team wins the GF. Any increase during the season is due to dormant supporters who are simply coming out of the woodwork as their team is winning and the prospect of a premiership grows.

The bandwagoners usually miss out on the premiership as they were supporting another team. After the GF they change teams and then follow the premiers.

Any chance you can back up this statement with some real facts? Coff Coff
 

innsaneink

Referee
Messages
29,365
DJ1 said:
Bandwagon supporters don't appear during the season in which a team wins the GF. Any increase during the season is due to dormant supporters who are simply coming out of the woodwork as their team is winning and the prospect of a premiership grows.

The bandwagoners usually miss out on the premiership as they were supporting another team. After the GF they change teams and then follow the premiers.

In Penriths case they had a dramatic rise from the cellar to being premiers. The increase in crowds was due to latent or dormant supporters, not band wagoners.

The Tigers are another good example of dormant support. As the season progressed the support was there.
You have a point here......I noticed last year just before and during the semis, many WTs fans in old style season 2000 & 2001 style gear that I hadnt seen for some time.

An interesting note will be how the diehard Balmain and Western Suburbs supporters who have not supported the Wests Tigers will now respond. Many would have relented during 2005, will the rest finally accept the merged entity as their team now they have a premiership?

Im not so sure about the "many" part in this statement, though I may be wrong, but I'd say if they hadnt embraced the JV by last years semis, they've pretty well made their minds up.....
 

ozzy_ozman

Juniors
Messages
1,280
innsaneink said:
Im not so sure about the "many" part in this statement, though I may be wrong, but I'd say if they hadnt embraced the JV by last years semis, they've pretty well made their minds up.....

You may see the old Balmain Tigers supporters coming back but with the old western suberbs magpies supporters will find it difficult for them to the tigers...
 

ozzie

Bench
Messages
4,704
Johnny Nitro and The Vipers said:
Haven’t the Roosters been known to be "creative" with their crowd figures????
I just love this story. This was caused by a fight between Penrith and the Roosters. The Roosters prior to Superleague took photographs of the crowd at Penrith and Penrith did the same to Easts. Trouble was when Penrith took the photograph it was half time in Premier League.

Now you go on still...but the Roosers don't publish the crowd figures. Ticket teck or the SCG Trust does.
 

DJ1

Juniors
Messages
1,710
ozzie said:
I just love this story. This was caused by a fight between Penrith and the Roosters. The Roosters prior to Superleague took photographs of the crowd at Penrith and Penrith did the same to Easts. Trouble was when Penrith took the photograph it was half time in Premier League.

I always found it strange that the Roosters attendance figures had that jump for one season. No doubt the behind the scenes escalation from Manly and the Roosters for a reduction in Sydney teams was a factor.

Roosters Average Home Crowds

1995 9,367
1996 17,060
1997 9,430

Everything became clear once I obtained transcripts of court proceedings surrounding the ARL/SL war which revealed the actual ARL plan which gave clubs the reason to even consider jumping ship.

ARL Club culling plan,

The Bradley Report


An issue which loomed large with the clubs was the insistance on having to apply for inclusion to the competition each and every year. This provided no security as there was no long term committment from the governing body that your club would still be there in 10, 5 or even 2 years.

The clubs were also somewhat fearful of the hierarchy who at "The Premiership Policy Committee" meeting earlier on 9th April 1992 tabled a document called "A blueprint for the expansion of Rugby League". This document was followed up shortly afterwards in Aug '92 by a draft document sent to all clubs titled "Organization Review" by Dr G. Bradley of W.D Scott & Co commissioned by the governing body. This document is why the ARL became the governing body instead of the NSWRL. The recommendations in this report to the governing body and the clubs also reached the following conclusion,

" to reduce the number of clubs in Sydney, will be very hard for the League to implement given the long playing traditions of some of those clubs. In the long term, however, it is likely that Sydney is not going to be able to support eleven clubs as it does at present. Therefore in the long term this is the only viable solution. Sydney based clubs are going to have to move to new areas, merge or be relegated from the League. This is going to be a painful process.

In the long term I believe that the ARL should be looking to reduce the number of clubs in the National Competition to fourteen thus allowing clubs to play two complete rounds. This will mean, assuming that only four new clubs are admitted from areas outside Sydney, that there will be only five clubs based in Sydney."

This is the long term plan which the ARL were already working on prior to any notion of Super League.

On 2/5/94 John Quayle sent all clubs their letter of invitation to season 1995. This included a number of criteria for admission which included,

"attract a minimum average home attendance of 10,000 people"

(Of note, the following clubs failed this criteria for 1995, Balmain, Easts, Gold Coast, Illawarra, Parramatta, Penrith, Souths, St George and Wests)

The Broncos (A private company) when transferring a 20% share of their company to Northern Rivers Ltd had the new shareholder receive this from Mr Quayle,

"Under the terms of the League's Constitution, it is necessary that, without exception, all clubs which wish to participate in the League's Premiership competition, must apply each year for admission. No club has any automatic right to participate in any year's competition and the League has the unfettered right to reject any club's application for participation."


Manly instigates club cull as a matter of urgency


At least one loyal club took the view that Super League, perhaps in an altered version, was not out of the question. In a letter dated 16 February 1995, Mr Hudson, the chairman of the board of Manly Warringah, wrote to Mr Quayle:
"there are great advantages for News Limited in getting their current proposal, or some version of it, finally accepted. Hence, we feel that the proposition is not 'dead and buried' and that attempts to de-stabilise the competition will continue.

There is a vulnerability in this which News Limited have identified. Their twelve (12) team competition has just four (4) teams in Sydney. They can see that a Sydney club can only survive with great difficulty financially and logistically, against the competition provided by one city clubs, and now (for Brisbane) a two (2) club city.

If the situation of the eleven (11) teams in Sydney is not addressed in some way by the League, the threat of a take-over, or such like, will continue to loom large.

We suggest that a plan to address the problems of the eleven (11) Sydney clubs vis-a-vis their colleagues in other cities and in other states is urgently needed."
The letter went on to request that the question of the Sydney clubs be considered by the Premiership Policy Committee on an urgent basis.

The committee did consider the letter at its meeting of 14 March 1995. The meeting (at which Mr Quayle was present) unanimously agreed that the "future structure of the Winfield Cup competition should contain fewer Sydney clubs". The committee also expressed the view that "the Board should convene as soon as possible to demonstrate leadership on the issue of fewer Sydney clubs".


Rooster affiliated Packer's ARL assistance only on the condition that the ARL reduce teams


The board of the League met at 12 noon on 1 April 1995 to consider the Super League situation. Three representatives of PBL (a Packer company involved in the operations of Channel Nine) and two from Optus and Optus Vision joined the meeting. Mr Powers, on behalf of PBL and Optus Vision, stated that these organisations would provide human and financial resources to assist the League in stemming defections to Super League. Mr Powers said that Channel Nine and Optus were prepared to commit $13-20 million. He also stated that the quid pro quo would include the League making some changes to accelerate the reduction of teams and the signing of player contracts with the ARL, instead of the clubs. The board resolved that Mr Leckie, representing PBL and Optus vision, be appointed as a director of the League.


Roosters associates now have veto on which teams are to be omitted from the ARL

A document dated 11 April 1995 summarised "deal terms" between the League and ARL and Channel Nine/Optus Vision. This provided for Channel Nine/Optus Vision to fund player contract commitments up to $40 million. The League and ARL were not to change the competition, format and frequency of the competition in a materially adverse way without the consent of Channel Nine/Optus Vision.
 

Cockadoodledoo

First Grade
Messages
5,045
DJ1 said:
I always found it strange that the Roosters attendance figures had that jump for one season. No doubt the behind the scenes escalation from Manly and the Roosters for a reduction in Sydney teams was a factor.

Roosters Average Home Crowds

1995 9,367
1996 17,060
1997 9,430

Everything became clear once I obtained transcripts of court proceedings surrounding the ARL/SL war which revealed the actual ARL plan which gave clubs the reason to even consider jumping ship.

Hows that Oasis project going? Or was it somehow just a mirage?
 

DJ1

Juniors
Messages
1,710
Cockadoodledoo said:
Hows that Oasis project going? Or was it somehow just a mirage?

I'll be quite happy to expand this discussion to the Oasis project if you are willing to expand it to discussions about

City Ford vehicles being driven by players (or their girlfriends/family) which are only discovered when the auditor pulls up next to them in the traffic, (Roosters fined)

or The $150K per season back door payment system to Souths Juniors which was designed to allow the Roosters to have $300K per season Craig Wing on their books for only $150K of their salary cap. This systematic cheating was revealed in 2002, the Roosters paid the $300K fine for it (no points though).
 

KFC

Juniors
Messages
995
DJ1 for someone that lives on the sunny Gold Coast you appear to be a bitter, nasty individual.

As I stated in my original post about the bandwagon theory it is only the insecure that truly have a problem with it.

And I see you don't let the truth stand in the way of a good story.

The Craig Wing salary cap breach was not "News" to the NRL as they were aware of the deal with Souths Juniors from the start. Easts, unsuccessfully argued that it shouldn't have been included in the cap.

BTW are you goingv to jump on the Titans bandwagon?
 

DJ1

Juniors
Messages
1,710
KFC said:
The Craig Wing salary cap breach was not "News" to the NRL as they were aware of the deal with Souths Juniors from the start.

SMH said:
The Roosters say this was all part of a legitimate and NRL-declared deal when they took over Wing's $300,000 a season contract from the then-expelled Souths at the end of 1999.

The Roosters have declared to the NRL that they are only paying Wing $150,000 of his $300,000 a year, with the other half coming as a legal subsidy from Souths Juniors.

The NRL had accepted that arrangement until a Herald investigation uncovered a letter written by Souths Juniors, dated March 31 this year, which makes it very clear Souths Juniors had already recouped $900,000 for Wing (equivalent to his three-year deal from 2000-2002).


NRL chief executive David Gallop said the new information could force salary-cap auditor Ian Schubert to widen his investigation.

"We may now need to go to Souths Juniors and Souths if we are not satisfied with the explanation from the Roosters," Gallop said.

"We may need to expand our inquiry.

"We've written to the Roosters and await their response."

NRL rules allow for fines equivalent to the breach plus the loss of one competition point for every $50,000 a club has exceeded the salary cap beyond $100,000, with a maximum penalty of four points, to be deducted the following season.

Gallop has also warned that the NRL would not hesitate to strip the 2002 premiership title from any club later found to have seriously breached the cap.

The NRL knew about the $150K under the cap. They clearly did not know about the under the table $150K.


Easts, unsuccessfully argued that it shouldn't have been included in the cap.


.....after they were found cheating. They did not declare it.
 

DJ1

Juniors
Messages
1,710
KFC said:
DJ1 for someone that lives on the sunny Gold Coast you appear to be a bitter, nasty individual.

Never judge a book by it's cover. I'm really nice.

As I stated in my original post about the bandwagon theory it is only the insecure that truly have a problem with it.

Do you have a problem with it? I don't!

BTW are you goingv to jump on the Titans bandwagon?

I think it's a great thing for the coast. I'll definitely go to games. They'll be my number 2 team.

Is that a Bandwagon?
 

KFC

Juniors
Messages
995
Gallop has also warned that the NRL would not hesitate to strip the 2002 premiership title from any club later found to have seriously breached the cap.

Seeing as the Bulldogs are the only team to ever have been striped of competition points for rorting the cap the NRL clearly decided that Easts had made a genuine mistake.

As for the Bandwagon, you started this thread I'd say you're the expert.
 

DJ1

Juniors
Messages
1,710
KFC said:
Seeing as the Bulldogs are the only team to ever have been striped of competition points for rorting the cap the NRL clearly decided that Easts had made a genuine mistake.

LOL

Two things saved the Roosters.

The first was that the SMH sat on the story until the first week of the finals in an attempt to create the biggest impact.

The second was the NRL wanted to bury the story as quickly as possible so as not to detract from the finals series.

Genuine mistake?
 

Raider Ultra

Bench
Messages
4,819
Only a country like Australia with its heartless and passionateless sports fans would actually congratulate people on glory hunting, sickening.
 

Latest posts

Top