ARL cant be that stupid

[eagle_predator]

I didn't go to one Beagles game. For me personally as a Manly supporter the merger was like ripping my heart right out i couldn't take it i hated it in everyway.

Some how i stayed interested through it by listening to some of the games on the radio i don't know how i did though. When i heard the news the merger was coming to an end and Manly were going to get their identity back as a stand alone club again i was over the moon like all Manly supporters would have been then they brought out the T-shirt were Back awesome.

 

[DSM5]

The smartest thing Arko did during that mess was to keep the operating license in Manly's name.  I too stayed away, except for a game at Aussie stadium.  Horrible to see.  The lights went out during those years.  Came back on for me when we got back in the comp as a stand alone.  Just like Christmas.       

 

[Rex]

DSM.  What would have happened if certain clubs had not sold out ownership and control of Rugby League to News Ltd?  Rugby Union didn't.  And they created new clubs and competitions, didn't they?  AFL didn't - and they created new clubs didn't they?  Soccer didn't and they created new clubs and competitions, didn't they?  Netball didn't and they created new clubs and competitions, didn't they?  Cricket didn't and they created new competitions, didn't they?  Every one of these sports maintained ownership and control - and have expanded and become wealthier due to Pay TV deals.  The only sport to have gone backwards is the one which was taken over by News Ltd.  Is that not so?

What makes you so certain that expansion of clubs wouldn't have happened to Rugby League without the Murdoch/Ribot hostile takeover - when it happened to every other competing sport during the same period????

How do you give credit to Ribot and presume the same or better (in terms of the particular expansion you like) wouldn't have happened without him?????

 

[Canteen Worker]

Companies should stick to their core business. News is a media company and should leave the running of a sport to someone that knows how to do so rather than continue with a conflict of interests.

 

[PONTIAN SEA EAGLE]

,[quote author=Duff link=topic=178944.msg203700#msg203700 date=1227999261]
That's a slimey post Pontian, as bad as some of DSM5's mange.

I went to no Beagles games, instead going to reggies games to get my fix of Manly when the Beagles were up the coast.

Even after the premiership this year I stand by what I said at the time. I'd rather we died out with dignity than compromise our identity by a merger or selling out to those for whom the best interests of the game & all involved came second to the lining of their own pockets.

Now one of these scumbags is back to either seek forgiveness or have another crack at taking over? He needs to be burned at the stake for the protection of the game and it's retribution. News cannot have their half of the board & then start to infiltrate ours.

it's simple duff Arko sent us broke,manly should have taken the cash & jumped ship that was bad management decision we almost went broke paying norths debts off.

 

[DSM5]

Jesus Rex, if you think the ARL were the white knights of the sporting realm then, good for you.  Packer and his cronies controlled the game back then and it was going nowhere and players were getting paid peanuts on the way.  Without News, Melbourne, Raiders and Nth Qld would not be around today.  The game is not ****ed up because of News, the problem is the multitude of groups scrambling for control.. An analysis of those other sports you mention sees that one controlling body can steer them forward, but not all those sports are on the rise as you allude to, they all have their problems.  The way forward is to have one body in control, a competent CEO  and a clear vision and money behind that vision.       

 

[Duff]

Duff, the 'die out with dignity ' play is rubbish.  Stay with the ARL or go with SL?  Same thing really,  still playing rugby league other than, staying with the ARL saw us go broke, merge with the stoopid Bears and disappear from the competition completely.  If we had of gone to SL we would have taken the cash and played on as the dominant team.  The lining of pockets will always be involved with sports, especially at the professional level, aka Colin Love, Gould, Hadley etc.  Duff, my guess is you would have rather supported no-team, than have supported a Manly team playing in a Super League comp.  Strange thing that.  Anyway, Ribot was also behind the Melbourne team which I think is good for the game, just like I think North Qld is as well.  I think Ribot's probably got something to offer the game that might drag the ARL into this century and I don't think youse punters should be scared.  Change can be positive especially if Manly is sitting in the driving seat steering the vision..

Standing by your principals is never rubbish. Seems like a bit of an insight to the way each of us conduct ourselves to me.
And yes, I'd rather support no club than a club I believe to have no integrity. I'd find it hard to put my money & emotion into something that I'm basically politically opposed to. Not sure how you find that particularly hard to understand.

Pontian, to reduce Arkos legacy to one line simply stating that he sent us broke is pretty close to treason. I'm sure there's quite a few on here who find that fairly offensive, given all the circumstances both leading up to & subsequently from it.

 

[DSM5]

Duff, what's the principle involved here.  Club ownership or private ownership?  I still go along to Manly games now that the club is in private hands, just as I went along when it wasn't, and I was a member of the club back then, and still am.  Regarding the controlling entity back then, I was never a Murdoch supporter nor a Packer man, just a fan of the game.  I saw that kids could get paid fairly for their efforts and the game could go truly international.  No principle involved there.  I travel a fair bit and would love to go to see league played in China, South Africa or the US or Canada at an international level.  I didn't see a problem with that vision then, nor did I see a problem with that still. But the dregs who ran, and are still running the greatest game of all, in their own insular clubland ways, seem to be content to stroll around their suburbs sprouting their wares and defending their shrinking patches.         

 

[Rex]

DSM,
If you think Murdoch is the white Knight that saved us from Packer, then good for you.  All I'm saying is that there was, of course, limited money in sport pre-Pay TV.  And to associate the increase in player pay with Murdoch's and Ribot's "vision" is outright crap.  OF COURSE when Pay TV arrived there was more money available to Rugby League as for every other televised sport.  No SL "vision" required for that outcome.  And OF COURSE there is the potential for expansion of sports Nationally and Internationally when Pay TV is on the scene. This has nothing to do with any SL "vision" crap.  It's the pure economics of the change in television structures.

You're salivating over selling out Rugby League to Murdoch and his cronies - becoming a mere cost-centre on News Ltd's books - and I'm not. If Murdoch and Ribot do it for you then so be it.  Meanwhile Rugby League is the cash cow that continues to be cut from fair TV deals and to pay out millions of dollars to Murdoch every year so he can increase other assets on his books.

 

[DSM5]

Rex, I can't see where I've sold out the game to Murdoch.  Doesn't he own it now without my input?  I didn't sell anything.  At the time I saw the Eagles go down the gurgler under the weight of the Bears when they could have survived those tortuous years as a stand alone club with some cash in the bank to play on.  And Rex, you can't just parrot my lines back to me.  I do not say that Murdoch is my white knight, rather, News supports financially three clubs which otherwise would either not exist or be down the tube financially now.  That's just a fact.  Money in those days was an interesting thing.  Packer paid unders when negotiating with TV (just ask those associated with Ch 10) in those pre SL days and laughed his way to the bank.  He played the minnows of Phillip St just as he played Bond.  When News took an interest, sure for their pay TV, Packer had to respond financially, which he had to.  Unfortunately sport is about money these days.   

 

[Arko-admirer]

As a first point we see the divisiveness that very mention of Ribot brings with him, even amongst supporters of the same ARL loyal club. So do we really want that again? I say pay soccer to keep him.

To believe Packer ran the game and it was going nowhere under the ARL is frankly as insult to Arthurson, the man who made Manly what it is. The game was only attractive to News because of it was achieving unprecedented success at the time, financially in TV ratings and with careful expansion, making it the envy of the other codes at the time.

I'd have to check but I think it was the corporate problems of 10 (Bond) and 7 (Skase) that made it a virtual one horse field when the ARL league contract came up. So Packer would have underpaid but that is still very different from being owned by a media organisation, who in selling rights, always of course to themselves, are hardly likely to overpay.

I also doubt that players were being underpaid under the ARL (I don't remember the stars of the time out with begging bowls). The main constraint on salaries then as now was the salary cap, which I think is needed to keep the competition in any sense broadly even. SuperLeague of course blew payer payments to unsustainable levels for many clubs, including ours.

News involvement no matter what money they put in has come at a tremendous cost. There is no such thing as a free lunch, they take money out of League's profits to compensate themselves for the money they lost, money that could go to junior devlelopment. The clubs that News props up better become self sufficient (one of course business genius Ribot ran and could not make sustainable) because the plug will be pulled one day.


Personally I think any who say Manly should have sold out (and I do mean sell the game out to those who crippled it) and chased the SuperLeague buck probably should consider following another club. Not that I don't welcome their support but really they don't seem to understand or appreciate the basic nature of a club that it is built on loyalty and character.

If they prefer the short-term mercenary chasing of money no matter what harm it inflicts, well as I say the Broncos or Canterbury are probably the club for them.

Still, I welcome them to keep following Manly as much as it must puzzle them why for instance someone like Menzies stuck with the club though offered bigger deals elsewhere. While at a SuperLeague club with its carefully nurtured culture of disloyalty and money first, we see that Sonny Bill Williams walks out barely a year into a contract.

 

[DSM5]

Arko Admirer, firstly thanks for the patronizing advice re looking to support another club, which of course I won't take, I consider myself a true Manly fan and have often been through hell to prove it.  I've always admired Arko, but that doesn't mean one should ignore his failings, just as I've admired Bozo, but can see his warts.  We all have them.  Having an opposing view doesn't necessarily mean that one should also walk away, or be pushed out, when your view doesn't prevail.  We live in a democracy and can have alternative viewpoints on a whole range of subjects.  Super League was, in my opinion, a reasonable vision.  I thought Manly should have jumped on board.  End of story.  We didn't and disappeared for a few years.  I didn't then, nor do I now see it as a 'loyalty' thing.  I only have loyalty to my footie club, not to PBL, ARL, NRL, Rupert Murdoch or Will Smith, or any other group that wishes to control.  We are now back and successful in a first grade rugby league comp.  All good.    (p.s Hopefully the latest incantation of PBL can stave of the creditors so the NRL can get their cash.  I note that rugby signed with News and are assured of theirs)     

 

[Arko-admirer]

Again SuperLeague was not really a vision for game's future just an excuse to launch a hostile takeover bid. Any real plan to establish league would have two teams in Brisbane as well as one on the Gold Coast. The Broncs only wanted to preserve a one city monopoly (AFL cities Perth, Adelaide do not have this) and that is bad for the game.


Rugby signed with News they did not sell out to them - which is what SuperLeague did giving control of the code away. So yes it was about control, should the game be run by league men or News stooges the likes of Gallop et al who will talk up the AFL to justify a terrible rights deal.

I don't only see it as a loyalty thing. Being a flimsy justification SuperLeague was not well thought out and it was put forward by men who had basically zero league understanding.

It was a terrible concept. While you said ealier you would have liked the North team to be Manly, obviously a Norths fan would have wanted the North team to be them. So a mishmash like the Northern Eagles was inevitably was the SuperLeague vision, like it or not and neither of us do.

Otherwise I am afraid we have to disagree on the issue of loyalty. Loyalty is interwoven into Manly's identity like marroon and white. It's part of what I love about the club and what ultimately elevates us above all the stupid and greedy SuperLeaguers.

SuperLeague was a horrible time for Manly fans and league fans in general. I prefer to blame the villains in this calamity, Ribot, the Broncos, the other turncoat clubs and News rather than say the finest league club their is should have joined with the game wreckers.

 

[DSM5]

Arko, I guess we'll just have to disagree with one another on the 'vision' thing.  I would argue however that the mishmash of the Beagles was not inevitable under the SL model.  If we had taken the cash we would have stood alone.  Norths weren't offered anything.  Indeed the amalgamation was forced on us by the dire financial position Manly and Norths were in when the mess was resolved.  Loyalty to whom might I add.  To Parra?  To Souths? Rorters? etc.  The 'loyalty' I see is to Manly full stop.  It's a tribal thing with me.    All the other clubs can go blow.  Clubs within the ARL have never shown a 'loyalty' gene with one another so why bother about it in 1996?  Indeed the very beginnings of the game spelt out the loyalty clause well and truly.  That's probably why I just love this team.  It's my oppositional gene coming through.  I love Manly because everyone, way back fifty five years ago, when I became a fan, really and truly hated us.   

 

[Arko-admirer]

DSM5 I am tribal too, which is why I backed league being run (and run exceedingly well) by a Manly man rather than the Broncos and their corporate raider allies, come of whom had to be briefed on who the league players they were courting were.

The SuperLeague vision (if I accept that term for argument's sake, really it was more a justification and a hoodwink) was for the Broncos to win pretty well every year, which with league's second city and until recently all of southeast Queensland  to themselves they just about should.

Arthurson in his bio admitted his greatest mistake was accepting the QRL recommendation the Broncos get the franchise. But I still think he did the right thing fighting them for control of the game.

DSM5 you may be right, had Manly seen the writing on the wall and jumped early to save our own skin we would have been spared the desolation of those terrible years. Perhaps Manly was too loyal to Arthurson and Arthurson too loyal to the game and other clubs.

But I believe that is the culture of Manly, as is seen by the number of past greats who love and stay involved with the club. It is something not understood by lesser clubs jealous of our success and who think it is all down to money. I am still glad we didn't join the despicable ranks of the most despicable of them in SuperLeague.

Anyway I am happy to let the dust settle on this dispute. To me the fact that Manly bled to death doing the unselfish and (to my mind) right thing, I think alone unaided by Packer, and are still hated by other clubs shows how superior our mob is and what merkins they are.

And forgive my patronising tone (an expression of disgust at SuperLeague) as a Manly supporter with about twice the pedigree in years of myself you should be patronising to me.

 

[DSM5]

Arko, we'll continue this discussion over a few ales, away from the baying hordes.  Cheers.

 

[byso]

Arko-Admirer

Do you have an explanation why Arko convinced the Manly supporters and Members to vote for a joint venture. Then once it happened he offered bugger all support for it, then was dead set keen to opt out of the JV. Reeked to me of a set up from the start. Hardly noble IMHO.

This is one thing that irked me about the great man.

 

[Arko-admirer]

I have no insight into his thought processes and am hardly in the inner sanctum of the club.

My guess is that the JV was not what anybody wanted but at the time looked like the only option for survival.

Perhaps he simply changed his mind once he saw how it was working in practice.

I'm not sure what you mean by a set-up. By who and in whose interests?

My point of view on all this is that before turning on our own we should keep our bile directed to those who were responsible for the mess in the first place, Ribot, the Broncos, the other turncoat clubs (who I perhaps naively believe will get theirs sooner or later ie: Cronulla) and News.

 

[Rex]

byso,

My reading is that Arko felt Manly were dead and buried without the money from merging with Norths.  Murdoch had won, News Ltd owned Rugby League, and Manly had been bankrupted in the fight. It was a last-gasp for air.  And as it turned out, Manly lived through that last-ditch effort.  Arko and Manly were smart enough to keep the licence in Manly's name, and Max came to the rescue.

 

[Rex]

DSM,

I'm still struggling to see why you say that SL was a good concept which has underdelivered.  You haven't explained.  Here are the main promised benefits of SL as I recall them:

1. Murdoch using his control of pay TV to broadcast League into Asia and around the world, and turn Rugby League into a true world game.  I agree if this did happen, then it would qualify as a good concept.  Why did this not happen? Did Ribot outright lie to us all, knowing this would not occur?  Did Murdoch lie to Ribot and suck him in?  Did Ribot not make any efforts to find out whether Murdoch would do this before making these promises to the public?  Ribot (and Murdoch) totally failed to deliver on this promise, yes? And Murdoch could make this happen if he wanted to.  Yes?  And he doesn't want to, correct?

2.  SL is a good concept because Murdoch has brought Rugby League to Melbourne.  Isn't it true that the Melbourne venture todate has been a total financial failure?  That News Ltd sucks out around $8m a year from other clubs to give directly to Melbourne, so Melbourne don't need to do anything to be financially viable?  Isn't it true that Melbournians have shunned the Storm despite their premiership successes?  Isn't it true that Murdoch gives very very little news coverage to the Storm in Melbourne, and if you want to watch any Rugby League in Melbourne on free TV then you need to stay up after midnight?  Isn't it true that the Storm stars can walk down Bourke Street without being recognised?  Isn't it true that if other clubs weren't still forced to prop up Melbourne, then it would collapse within about one year? Isn't it true that Murdoch has the ability through his media empire to turn this all around, and that he hasn't, and doesn't want to?

3.  SL is a good concept because it will make Rugby League profitable because we will have the financial expertise of News Ltd businessmen running the game.  Isn't it true that Rugby League has been effectively bankrupted by SL, that the are NO reserves in case something goes wrong.  That all money coming in is effectively spent in the same year that it is received.  That more clubs (including Manly) than ever are on the verge of folding if they have one or two bad years?  Isn't it true that there is now a huge debt directly due to SL which is the anchor holding back Rugby League profitability for many, many years to come?

4.  SL is a good concept because Broncos are profitable.  No surprise Broncos like it.  They have prevented any competiton in Brisbane - the biggest fresh market in Rugby League, so their owners (Murdoch's News Ltd) can make monopoly profits.  Blind Freddy can see there should have been at least one new team in Brissy about ten years ago.  Instead we now have a SL competition where 100% owned News Ltd teams dominate.  Level playing field?  Pfft.

So help me DSM, why was SL a good concept, and who's to blame, if not Murdoch, for it underdelivering on the outlandish promises his people made?