NRL 2012

[bazza]

Steve Kearney has received the full support of the Eels board
That gives him about 6 weeks left as coach

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 1y1ur.html

[Jeffles]

Haha. It sure does.

His record is pretty dire but to be fair, some of those players aren't putting in.

[Boba Fett]

Haha. It sure does.

His record is pretty dire but to be fair, some of those players aren't putting in.

Which is why you can't judge a coach unless he's been involved with recruiting. Kearney's probably doing the best he can with the crappy playing roster he's inherited.

[St James]

He's got 3 S.O.O. reps and 3 other Internationals in his side. Plus Sandow.
He's got the cattle. They (we ) are a rabble atm. It's embarressing.

St James.

[Jeffles]

There's a lot of stadium rationalisation talk in the Sydney media at the moment about NRL.

Among some of the proposals is a plan to have shared gates for blockbusters etc. Not sure I like the idea of a competition game where the home side does not choose who is the home side.

My preference is to leave it to market forces. If the game grows big/expensive enough, clubs will have to move more games to places where they can get better value such as the SFS and ANZ Stadium. The only thing stopping them is a state/Fed government that wants to pay for a grandstand as a sweetener. If they didn't do that, clubs would be rationalising of their own free will. I mean, look at Parra. If they have a good year (unlikely) their ground would be hopelessly inadequate. I know they are pushing for an upgrade behind the goals but why would the state fund that when there is ANZ Stadium down the road to take bigger games?

Anyway, on the field Michael Jennings has been promoted (that's right) to NSW Cup this weekend at the same time he is expected to get an Origin call up. If he does not perform, Ricky Stuart will have a lot to answer for.

[Boba Fett]

There's a lot of stadium rationalisation talk in the Sydney media at the moment about NRL.

Among some of the proposals is a plan to have shared gates for blockbusters etc. Not sure I like the idea of a competition game where the home side does not choose who is the home side.

My preference is to leave it to market forces. If the game grows big/expensive enough, clubs will have to move more games to places where they can get better value such as the SFS and ANZ Stadium. The only thing stopping them is a state/Fed government that wants to pay for a grandstand as a sweetener. If they didn't do that, clubs would be rationalising of their own free will. I mean, look at Parra. If they have a good year (unlikely) their ground would be hopelessly inadequate. I know they are pushing for an upgrade behind the goals but why would the state fund that when there is ANZ Stadium down the road to take bigger games?

Anyway, on the field Michael Jennings has been promoted (that's right) to NSW Cup this weekend at the same time he is expected to get an Origin call up. If he does not perform, Ricky Stuart will have a lot to answer for.

I actually think what is being discussed is a really good thing. The big difference is that the Sydney based clubs are actually trying to work together for mutual benefit, rather than having decisions made for them by the NRL. The CEOs are being proactive - something they've not been renowned for in the past.

Excellent move.

[Jeffles]

I just don't want it to be NRL mandated. There's subtext in some of the reports suggesting it might be but as you say, so far it is coming from the clubs. What we are seeing is partially a market based response. I.e. clubs want more money and fans don't want to be locked out.

[Rob]

In the AFL, you could say the league encouraged it as opposed to demanding it. Some clubs moved by way of necessity (North's ground was essentially condemned). Others moved because their ground was a shithole and Carlton were the last to move because they were getting left behind playing at a suburban facility attracting substandard crowds.
But in most cases it was driven by the clubs needing a better facility to accommodate not just the crowds, but the corporates. The latter becoming a more and more important revenue stream for clubs in the professional national league. I would have thought the same principles would apply to NRL clubs as well.

[yob]

In the AFL, you could say the league encouraged it as opposed to demanding it.

Some encouragement. Put down 460 million for a stadium and suggest it's probably a good idea it's put to use.

The clubs did not want docklands. They had to be enticed to play games there. Docklands made the simple offer - first club in gets the best deal, and Essendon took it.

[Jeffles]

It does apply to NRL clubs and as long as the NRL clubs are in control, they will see the benefit in moving. But there's a difference between that and a mandate from head office, which I find uneasy. I'm not suggesting it has come from hea doffice just yet, but I do detect a subtext in the media reports

Richard Hinds and others like comparing Melbourne to Sydney. The compartmentalised geography of Sydney v centralised Melbourne makes a move a little harder fo the outer clubs, but it is not impossible. I would not expect Penrith and Manly to move as many games as Parra, who IMO could go lock, stock and barrell to Homebush Bay. The other thing to consider is that it potentially exacerbates the fixing of the draw for more derbies etc. The move from "Home and Away" to "Neighbours" so to speak. Whilst in past years, when the draw -was based on ladder positions the previous year - Sydney clubs may have had to play the Cowboys, Titans and Raiders. Now they'll be telling the NRL not to give them such a break because they need to fulfil certain obligations re bigger stadiums. But that battle has already been lost.

[Rob]

In the AFL, you could say the league encouraged it as opposed to demanding it.

Some encouragement. Put down 460 million for a stadium and suggest it's probably a good idea it's put to use.

The clubs did not want docklands. They had to be enticed to play games there. Docklands made the simple offer - first club in gets the best deal, and Essendon took it.

LOL, bullshit. The only club that actively didn't want it was Hawthorn, who only didn't want it because it meant Waverley was going. If the AFL had of kept that, then they probably didn't care one way or the other.

The Dogs were hugely excited about it - their ground was a dump, they were playing games at Optus Oval to terrible crowds, and Docklands was easy to access for their supporters in the Western Suburbs. 'Doglands' they were going to call it. St Kilda were pretty happy to sign up to play there as well.

It's only become unpopular with clubs since they haven't drawn the big crowds they hoped, they are still struggling to attract corporates at the bottom end of their market, Victorians are as soft as sh*t in regard to ticket prices and they continue to charge bargain basement prices for premium seats there. So instead of blaming their club's soft supporters or incompetent management, they use the stadium as a scapegoat. Beats accepting responsibility yourself.

Let's face it, it's arguably the best stadium in the country and indisputably in the top 2. Yet the complaining you hear on bigfooty in regards to it defies belief. You'd think it was an even more run down version of Subiaco.

[IanRitchie]

'Doglands' they were going to call it.

probably for the best that they ended up missing the boat on that one.

[yob]

LOL, bullshit. The only club that actively didn't want it was Hawthorn, who only didn't want it because it meant Waverley was going. If the AFL had of kept that, then they probably didn't care one way or the other.

Clubs were presented with the choice of the MCG or Docklands. Hawthorn, Melbourne, Richmond, Collingwood chose the MCG. Hawthorn was particularly vocal in its support for the MCG not only because they wanted Waverley, but from a cost perspective they believed the breakeven figure for the MCG was 18,000. Carlton told the AFL to jump and chose Princes Park. Geelong chose Kardinia Park. Docklands struggled for tenants so they stimulated some artificial demand by offering the best deal to the first club that signed on to Docklands. That club was Essendon. St Kilda first threw its support behind Waverley alongside Hawthorn. When that option disappeared they played a season at Docklands before Rod Butterss cracked the sads, fired Malcom Blight and threatened to redevelop and relocate to Moorabbin (!!!).

Docklands had a very rocky existence in its early stages. In concept stage it was mooted as a rectangular venue until it was apparent the private sector wouldn't go for it. Docklands only established itself as a viable venue when Essendon signed. The other clubs fell in to line afterward (and moaned they didn't get the same deal as Essendon).

[Jeffles]

My beefs with Docklands are quite minor. The concourse area behind the seating is too cramped and they rarely open the roof. But they are minor. Easiest ground to get to in the country, great precinct around the venue for food and drink etc. Excellent sightlines. And that's just the public seating. So why don't people like Docklands?

On the field, Cronulla ended Melbourne's run and they did it without Gallen. When David Morrow called it one of their greatest wins in their 45 year history he was probably right. Very funny to see Billy Slater get sent to the sin bin.

NSW picked their State of Origin team. I feel less confident that I have in the last 7 years. You know things aren't off to a great start when the selector reads out the squad in "alphabetical order" and places Uate after Williams.

[Simmo79]

Origin clean sweep by QLD?