New chapter in book of feuds

magpiecol
Member
Member
Posts: 3195
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 3:02 pm

Re: New chapter in book of feuds

Post by magpiecol » Fri 20 Jul, 2018 11:41 pm

jirskyr wrote:
Fri 20 Jul, 2018 11:58 am
Harvey wrote:
Thu 19 Jul, 2018 7:43 pm
jirskyr wrote:
Thu 19 Jul, 2018 12:02 pm
I don't mind Rusty, we need more rich high-profile people pouring their money, resource and pulling power into the game.

He loves his Rabbits, he loves them at home, he loves them overseas, he loves them on the Jay Leno Show. That can only be a good thing.

The rest of it, the arrogance etc., well that just comes with the territory. I've never met Uncle Harry but I understand he's not the world's most loved property developer either.
No, we need the game and clubs to be self sustainable, not be directed by egomaniacs with deep pockets.

Nathan Tinkler did not quite work out so well for the knights.
I disagree - we currently haven't the funding to maintain 16 self-sustained profitable clubs and we never have. The high-value TV deals are not permanent. What happens in 4-5 years from now if the next TV deal is reduced, what happens to the cap and the wages and the spending expectations if the NRL can no longer cover $10M per club?

I also honestly think you misunderstand the already existing private ownership landscape of the NRL. Eric Watson owned the Warriors for 17 years (until just recently), the Penn family own most of Manly, Rebecca Frizelle now owns the Titans. Russell Crowe does not have complete control of Souths, he is part-backed by James Packer and ceded 25% control of Souths to the membership, including jersey, colours, home ground etc. Rusty actually owns less of Souths than the Penns do of Manly.

No, Nathan Tinkler didn't work out, but that doesn't mean private ownership is synonymous with business failure.

It's also not as if non-individual ownership is a template for success either, given how many current clubs have fallen over and needed NRL intervention, despite being backed by Leagues clubs or business groups, rather than deep-pocketed owners - Gold Coast, Balmain, St George; all the clubs that were destroyed in the Super League era, Newtown.

My opinion is that clubs often run at a loss because it's such a competitive landscape, and in Australia it's not just other clubs in the NRL, it's a wide variety of other codes. When you have businesses funding the clubs, those businesses generally exist for two reasons - solely to fund the club (e.g. Football Clubs) or to make a profit from the clubs. If the profit wanes, the business tend to want move away because it's not necessarily a passion-project. Businesses typically abandon loss-making ventures unless it's in their mandate to continue funding.

Many of the traditional supporters of NRL clubs have been leagues clubs, who relied heavily on gambling revenues and have been significantly impacted by the pokies tax. This is changing, however it still means that rugby league is heavily funded at all levels, including top-tier sponsorship, by gambling monies - which is hardly an ideal moral position to be in.

But private owners, most of them do it for the passion rather than the profit, so they are likely to tip in more money and not just withdraw because the clubs lose money. Yes sometimes their business empires can fail, but so can any other business.

The English Premier League is almost entirely privately owned, as is the NFL. Doesn't mean it's a perfect system, but lots of owners with deep pockets makes for a very well-funded league.

Moral position? What are you on about?


coolcat
Member
Member
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue 30 Aug, 2011 7:57 am

Post by coolcat » Sat 21 Jul, 2018 12:04 am

Kerry Cogger wrote:
Fri 20 Jul, 2018 10:34 pm
coolcat wrote:
Fri 20 Jul, 2018 2:06 pm
There is a 50 meter line,

Can we just put a 2 in front of it for robbie.
Nope.Not our home game.
It is our home game .... why Not?

Kerry Cogger
Member
Member
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed 04 Jul, 2018 6:38 pm

Post by Kerry Cogger » Sat 21 Jul, 2018 12:20 am

coolcat wrote:
Sat 21 Jul, 2018 12:04 am
Kerry Cogger wrote:
Fri 20 Jul, 2018 10:34 pm
coolcat wrote:
Fri 20 Jul, 2018 2:06 pm
There is a 50 meter line,

Can we just put a 2 in front of it for robbie.
Nope.Not our home game.
It is our home game .... why Not?
Point I'm trying to make is it was our home game till Tuesday when the NRL rang our CEO and said the field is getting marked with 300 for Sutton.Our ceo says how bout something for Robbie for 250 NRL "SAYS GO GET STUFFED".This was from pressure from Russell Crowe.

happy tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 40797
Joined: Sun 27 Feb, 2011 4:49 pm

Post by happy tiger » Sat 21 Jul, 2018 1:50 am

magpiecol wrote:
Fri 20 Jul, 2018 11:41 pm
jirskyr wrote:
Fri 20 Jul, 2018 11:58 am
Harvey wrote:
Thu 19 Jul, 2018 7:43 pm
jirskyr wrote:
Thu 19 Jul, 2018 12:02 pm
I don't mind Rusty, we need more rich high-profile people pouring their money, resource and pulling power into the game.

He loves his Rabbits, he loves them at home, he loves them overseas, he loves them on the Jay Leno Show. That can only be a good thing.

The rest of it, the arrogance etc., well that just comes with the territory. I've never met Uncle Harry but I understand he's not the world's most loved property developer either.
No, we need the game and clubs to be self sustainable, not be directed by egomaniacs with deep pockets.

Nathan Tinkler did not quite work out so well for the knights.
I disagree - we currently haven't the funding to maintain 16 self-sustained profitable clubs and we never have. The high-value TV deals are not permanent. What happens in 4-5 years from now if the next TV deal is reduced, what happens to the cap and the wages and the spending expectations if the NRL can no longer cover $10M per club?

I also honestly think you misunderstand the already existing private ownership landscape of the NRL. Eric Watson owned the Warriors for 17 years (until just recently), the Penn family own most of Manly, Rebecca Frizelle now owns the Titans. Russell Crowe does not have complete control of Souths, he is part-backed by James Packer and ceded 25% control of Souths to the membership, including jersey, colours, home ground etc. Rusty actually owns less of Souths than the Penns do of Manly.

No, Nathan Tinkler didn't work out, but that doesn't mean private ownership is synonymous with business failure.

It's also not as if non-individual ownership is a template for success either, given how many current clubs have fallen over and needed NRL intervention, despite being backed by Leagues clubs or business groups, rather than deep-pocketed owners - Gold Coast, Balmain, St George; all the clubs that were destroyed in the Super League era, Newtown.

My opinion is that clubs often run at a loss because it's such a competitive landscape, and in Australia it's not just other clubs in the NRL, it's a wide variety of other codes. When you have businesses funding the clubs, those businesses generally exist for two reasons - solely to fund the club (e.g. Football Clubs) or to make a profit from the clubs. If the profit wanes, the business tend to want move away because it's not necessarily a passion-project. Businesses typically abandon loss-making ventures unless it's in their mandate to continue funding.

Many of the traditional supporters of NRL clubs have been leagues clubs, who relied heavily on gambling revenues and have been significantly impacted by the pokies tax. This is changing, however it still means that rugby league is heavily funded at all levels, including top-tier sponsorship, by gambling monies - which is hardly an ideal moral position to be in.

But private owners, most of them do it for the passion rather than the profit, so they are likely to tip in more money and not just withdraw because the clubs lose money. Yes sometimes their business empires can fail, but so can any other business.

The English Premier League is almost entirely privately owned, as is the NFL. Doesn't mean it's a perfect system, but lots of owners with deep pockets makes for a very well-funded league.

Moral position? What are you on about?
You don't own an NRL side in Sydney thinking you'll make money in the majority of cases

If you break even you can thank your lucky stars you have put the right people in place

Unfortunately we just don't have the population / supporter base to back 16 successful clubs

Yes they could be run better and the game from top to bottom needs a major facelift , but whether that will still produce 16 healthy and profitable NRL clubs is doubtful

We need to face facts , 2 clubs from Sydney must relocate

And that's when it's get's real , do we then base that decision on FTA / Fox viewers per game or actual crowd numbers ??

Kerry Cogger
Member
Member
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed 04 Jul, 2018 6:38 pm

Post by Kerry Cogger » Sat 21 Jul, 2018 2:10 am

happy tiger wrote:
Sat 21 Jul, 2018 1:50 am
magpiecol wrote:
Fri 20 Jul, 2018 11:41 pm
jirskyr wrote:
Fri 20 Jul, 2018 11:58 am
Harvey wrote:
Thu 19 Jul, 2018 7:43 pm


No, we need the game and clubs to be self sustainable, not be directed by egomaniacs with deep pockets.

Nathan Tinkler did not quite work out so well for the knights.
I disagree - we currently haven't the funding to maintain 16 self-sustained profitable clubs and we never have. The high-value TV deals are not permanent. What happens in 4-5 years from now if the next TV deal is reduced, what happens to the cap and the wages and the spending expectations if the NRL can no longer cover $10M per club?

I also honestly think you misunderstand the already existing private ownership landscape of the NRL. Eric Watson owned the Warriors for 17 years (until just recently), the Penn family own most of Manly, Rebecca Frizelle now owns the Titans. Russell Crowe does not have complete control of Souths, he is part-backed by James Packer and ceded 25% control of Souths to the membership, including jersey, colours, home ground etc. Rusty actually owns less of Souths than the Penns do of Manly.

No, Nathan Tinkler didn't work out, but that doesn't mean private ownership is synonymous with business failure.

It's also not as if non-individual ownership is a template for success either, given how many current clubs have fallen over and needed NRL intervention, despite being backed by Leagues clubs or business groups, rather than deep-pocketed owners - Gold Coast, Balmain, St George; all the clubs that were destroyed in the Super League era, Newtown.

My opinion is that clubs often run at a loss because it's such a competitive landscape, and in Australia it's not just other clubs in the NRL, it's a wide variety of other codes. When you have businesses funding the clubs, those businesses generally exist for two reasons - solely to fund the club (e.g. Football Clubs) or to make a profit from the clubs. If the profit wanes, the business tend to want move away because it's not necessarily a passion-project. Businesses typically abandon loss-making ventures unless it's in their mandate to continue funding.

Many of the traditional supporters of NRL clubs have been leagues clubs, who relied heavily on gambling revenues and have been significantly impacted by the pokies tax. This is changing, however it still means that rugby league is heavily funded at all levels, including top-tier sponsorship, by gambling monies - which is hardly an ideal moral position to be in.

But private owners, most of them do it for the passion rather than the profit, so they are likely to tip in more money and not just withdraw because the clubs lose money. Yes sometimes their business empires can fail, but so can any other business.

The English Premier League is almost entirely privately owned, as is the NFL. Doesn't mean it's a perfect system, but lots of owners with deep pockets makes for a very well-funded league.

Moral position? What are you on about?
You don't own an NRL side in Sydney thinking you'll make money in the majority of cases

If you break even you can thank your lucky stars you have put the right people in place

Unfortunately we just don't have the population / supporter base to back 16 successful clubs

Yes they could be run better and the game from top to bottom needs a major facelift , but whether that will still produce 16 healthy and profitable NRL clubs is doubtful

We need to face facts , 2 clubs from Sydney must relocate

And that's when it's get's real , do we then base that decision on FTA / Fox viewers per game or actual crowd numbers ??
To where?


Fade To Black
Member
Member
Posts: 5477
Joined: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 5:51 pm

Post by Fade To Black » Sat 21 Jul, 2018 3:23 am

innsaneink wrote:
Fri 20 Jul, 2018 10:11 pm
What's a cupboard kid?
Bwaiff's ex-missus.

User avatar
Love the WestsTigers
Member
Member
Posts: 3223
Joined: Wed 21 Jul, 2010 12:03 pm
Location: Ex Ctown Resident Now Qlander

Post by Love the WestsTigers » Sat 21 Jul, 2018 8:26 am

Geo. wrote:
Wed 18 Jul, 2018 9:38 am
POSTCODE 2172..

Stuff Souff's...Our home game..
100% agree

Its the Home team who should get the last say, visiting team has NO Rights

Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 4864
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm

Post by Byron Bay Fan » Sat 21 Jul, 2018 8:39 am

Kerry Cogger wrote:
Sat 21 Jul, 2018 12:20 am
coolcat wrote:
Sat 21 Jul, 2018 12:04 am
Kerry Cogger wrote:
Fri 20 Jul, 2018 10:34 pm
coolcat wrote:
Fri 20 Jul, 2018 2:06 pm
There is a 50 meter line,

Can we just put a 2 in front of it for robbie.
Nope.Not our home game.
It is our home game .... why Not?
Point I'm trying to make is it was our home game till Tuesday when the NRL rang our CEO and said the field is getting marked with 300 for Sutton.Our ceo says how bout something for Robbie for 250 NRL "SAYS GO GET STUFFED".This was from pressure from Russell Crowe.
We could learn tons here from the basketball Boomers and just rip that 300 marker up and put down our 250 marker instead - it worked in the Philippines.
Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)

User avatar
Harvey
Member
Member
Posts: 3701
Joined: Mon 22 Jun, 2015 10:01 pm
Location: Leumeah

Post by Harvey » Sat 21 Jul, 2018 9:11 am

Get Russell Packer to pee on it.

happy tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 40797
Joined: Sun 27 Feb, 2011 4:49 pm

Post by happy tiger » Sat 21 Jul, 2018 9:45 am

Kerry Cogger wrote:
Sat 21 Jul, 2018 2:10 am
happy tiger wrote:
Sat 21 Jul, 2018 1:50 am
magpiecol wrote:
Fri 20 Jul, 2018 11:41 pm
jirskyr wrote:
Fri 20 Jul, 2018 11:58 am

I disagree - we currently haven't the funding to maintain 16 self-sustained profitable clubs and we never have. The high-value TV deals are not permanent. What happens in 4-5 years from now if the next TV deal is reduced, what happens to the cap and the wages and the spending expectations if the NRL can no longer cover $10M per club?

I also honestly think you misunderstand the already existing private ownership landscape of the NRL. Eric Watson owned the Warriors for 17 years (until just recently), the Penn family own most of Manly, Rebecca Frizelle now owns the Titans. Russell Crowe does not have complete control of Souths, he is part-backed by James Packer and ceded 25% control of Souths to the membership, including jersey, colours, home ground etc. Rusty actually owns less of Souths than the Penns do of Manly.

No, Nathan Tinkler didn't work out, but that doesn't mean private ownership is synonymous with business failure.

It's also not as if non-individual ownership is a template for success either, given how many current clubs have fallen over and needed NRL intervention, despite being backed by Leagues clubs or business groups, rather than deep-pocketed owners - Gold Coast, Balmain, St George; all the clubs that were destroyed in the Super League era, Newtown.

My opinion is that clubs often run at a loss because it's such a competitive landscape, and in Australia it's not just other clubs in the NRL, it's a wide variety of other codes. When you have businesses funding the clubs, those businesses generally exist for two reasons - solely to fund the club (e.g. Football Clubs) or to make a profit from the clubs. If the profit wanes, the business tend to want move away because it's not necessarily a passion-project. Businesses typically abandon loss-making ventures unless it's in their mandate to continue funding.

Many of the traditional supporters of NRL clubs have been leagues clubs, who relied heavily on gambling revenues and have been significantly impacted by the pokies tax. This is changing, however it still means that rugby league is heavily funded at all levels, including top-tier sponsorship, by gambling monies - which is hardly an ideal moral position to be in.

But private owners, most of them do it for the passion rather than the profit, so they are likely to tip in more money and not just withdraw because the clubs lose money. Yes sometimes their business empires can fail, but so can any other business.

The English Premier League is almost entirely privately owned, as is the NFL. Doesn't mean it's a perfect system, but lots of owners with deep pockets makes for a very well-funded league.

Moral position? What are you on about?
You don't own an NRL side in Sydney thinking you'll make money in the majority of cases

If you break even you can thank your lucky stars you have put the right people in place

Unfortunately we just don't have the population / supporter base to back 16 successful clubs

Yes they could be run better and the game from top to bottom needs a major facelift , but whether that will still produce 16 healthy and profitable NRL clubs is doubtful

We need to face facts , 2 clubs from Sydney must relocate

And that's when it's get's real , do we then base that decision on FTA / Fox viewers per game or actual crowd numbers ??
To where?
I'm not 100 % sure

Possibly merge ??

PNG possibly , 2nd NZ side ,Central Coast , Darwin ,Perth.

I was about relocating to Qld , but totally believe that they won't survive , they will want their own side

larrycorowa
Member
Member
Posts: 2094
Joined: Fri 19 Feb, 2010 1:47 pm

Post by larrycorowa » Sat 21 Jul, 2018 10:33 am

magpiecol wrote:
Fri 20 Jul, 2018 11:41 pm
jirskyr wrote:
Fri 20 Jul, 2018 11:58 am
Harvey wrote:
Thu 19 Jul, 2018 7:43 pm
jirskyr wrote:
Thu 19 Jul, 2018 12:02 pm
I don't mind Rusty, we need more rich high-profile people pouring their money, resource and pulling power into the game.

He loves his Rabbits, he loves them at home, he loves them overseas, he loves them on the Jay Leno Show. That can only be a good thing.

The rest of it, the arrogance etc., well that just comes with the territory. I've never met Uncle Harry but I understand he's not the world's most loved property developer either.
No, we need the game and clubs to be self sustainable, not be directed by egomaniacs with deep pockets.

Nathan Tinkler did not quite work out so well for the knights.
I disagree - we currently haven't the funding to maintain 16 self-sustained profitable clubs and we never have. The high-value TV deals are not permanent. What happens in 4-5 years from now if the next TV deal is reduced, what happens to the cap and the wages and the spending expectations if the NRL can no longer cover $10M per club?

I also honestly think you misunderstand the already existing private ownership landscape of the NRL. Eric Watson owned the Warriors for 17 years (until just recently), the Penn family own most of Manly, Rebecca Frizelle now owns the Titans. Russell Crowe does not have complete control of Souths, he is part-backed by James Packer and ceded 25% control of Souths to the membership, including jersey, colours, home ground etc. Rusty actually owns less of Souths than the Penns do of Manly.

No, Nathan Tinkler didn't work out, but that doesn't mean private ownership is synonymous with business failure.

It's also not as if non-individual ownership is a template for success either, given how many current clubs have fallen over and needed NRL intervention, despite being backed by Leagues clubs or business groups, rather than deep-pocketed owners - Gold Coast, Balmain, St George; all the clubs that were destroyed in the Super League era, Newtown.

My opinion is that clubs often run at a loss because it's such a competitive landscape, and in Australia it's not just other clubs in the NRL, it's a wide variety of other codes. When you have businesses funding the clubs, those businesses generally exist for two reasons - solely to fund the club (e.g. Football Clubs) or to make a profit from the clubs. If the profit wanes, the business tend to want move away because it's not necessarily a passion-project. Businesses typically abandon loss-making ventures unless it's in their mandate to continue funding.

Many of the traditional supporters of NRL clubs have been leagues clubs, who relied heavily on gambling revenues and have been significantly impacted by the pokies tax. This is changing, however it still means that rugby league is heavily funded at all levels, including top-tier sponsorship, by gambling monies - which is hardly an ideal moral position to be in.

But private owners, most of them do it for the passion rather than the profit, so they are likely to tip in more money and not just withdraw because the clubs lose money. Yes sometimes their business empires can fail, but so can any other business.

The English Premier League is almost entirely privately owned, as is the NFL. Doesn't mean it's a perfect system, but lots of owners with deep pockets makes for a very well-funded league.

Moral position? What are you on about?
Crowe has been the best thing to happen to the nrl for many years. We could do worse than having more like minded people involved rather than the muppets currently ruining the game.

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 6040
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Sat 21 Jul, 2018 12:10 pm

magpiecol wrote:
Fri 20 Jul, 2018 11:41 pm
Moral position? What are you on about?
To be so obviously and heavily reliant on gambling monies for revenues.

User avatar
Tweed Tiger
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 2937
Joined: Thu 06 Apr, 2017 2:57 pm
Location: Tweed Heads

Post by Tweed Tiger » Sat 21 Jul, 2018 7:51 pm



@WestsTigers

Add this to your book of feuds.#NRLTigersSouths

gallagher
Member
Member
Posts: 5541
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 1:18 pm

Post by gallagher » Sat 21 Jul, 2018 8:08 pm

Ha. Great comeback

Leichhardt Latte
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun 17 Jun, 2018 7:00 pm
Location: Leichhardt

Post by Leichhardt Latte » Sat 21 Jul, 2018 10:14 pm

'Book of Feuds"? From a Club who stole a Premiership in 1909 with lies and deceit? I'm still trying to work out how the NRL allowed McCarthy to ring their stupid bell before the 2014 GF. Stuff Souths, if you're from Balmain you hate these crims and that's the way it should be

Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 4864
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm

Post by Byron Bay Fan » Sun 22 Jul, 2018 8:53 am

Just had to include this very well written snippet in this very appropriate thread from The Pride of the League Warren. What payback for their Grand Final heist of a hundred years ago when they broke an agreement and claimed the trophy from Tigers on forfeit.
----------------------------------------------------
https://warren.rabbitohs.net/t/round-19 ... itohs/2511
Souths Tragic

WHY WE HATE THEM: While one doesn’t want to degenerate into childish arguments over events that occurred nearly half a century ago, I have included a brief overview of this travesty for the purists & younger members of the forum. South Sydney’s Clive Churchill-coached team went into the 1969 grand final looking for their third straight premiership, boasting the likes of Bob McCarthy, John Sattler, Ron Coote, Eric Simms, John O’Neill, Denis Pittard & Mike Cleary. Balmain would end up winning 11-2 in a victory which is considered one of the great grand final upsets. It became known as the “lay-down grand final” & Balmain’s gamesmanship was seen by many as against the spirit of the game. The rules were changed to allow for play to continue while an injured player was being treated & as a result, we duly flogged the chip- thieves 23 -12 in the 1970 grand final.

Although not a conspiracy theorist, the true origins of the rise of soccer in Australia can be directly traced to this game. Recruitment scouts from the “world game” correctly recognised the talent available in the region, & the Leichardt district now quite appropriately produces more soccer than Rugby League players, where hurling oneself screaming onto the ground while feigning an opposition-induced, life-threatening injury is a coveted skill.

At the end of the day, a rugby league game is but a heartbeat in the fleeting pulse of life but NOTHING MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL MORE THAN SEEING ONE OF THESE STINKING, FILTHY CATS HIT THE DECK IN AN EFFORT TO SLOW DOWN THE GAME……Anyway, I digress.
Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)

Fade To Black
Member
Member
Posts: 5477
Joined: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 5:51 pm

Post by Fade To Black » Sun 22 Jul, 2018 11:16 am

Someone can't even browse their forum unless you have an account? Up-themselves tossers, would of been worth a look on their after that flogging yesterday.

User avatar
Geo.
Member
Member
Posts: 29356
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 10:55 pm
Location: Perugia Italy..

Post by Geo. » Sun 22 Jul, 2018 11:18 am

Wish someone would just stay there...fits in well
Wests Tigers don't need a Coach.. The playing group has taken over..

Post Reply