Do we need a Super League v2.0?

[Mr Invisible]

With ever growing waivering discontent surrounding the NRL, crowds dropping, betting taking a stranglehold, and officialdom at the worst it has ever been, one has to wonder.

Change only occurs through competition or choice. When competition rolls into town, the business has no choice but to adopt change to counter against the new competition.

However when no competition exists, then the business is free to run unopposed, and unquestioned.

In every other industry and business, there is competition.... except most sports.

Now for most that isn't a problem: AFL, Rugby, A League rarely suffer the constant scrutiny and screwups that the NRL are constantly sweeping under the ever growing rug.

So with all this in mind... is it time?

Do we need to see the development of a rival competition, in order to force the NRL into making changes for the good of the game?

I'm not talking about a new competition that could out the NRL totally (although at the current point in time I wouldn't mind that), but if something was to come up that forced the hand of the NRL into major changes, surely that would only be good for all.

If some of the games power brokers branched off though, would you support an opposing league?

Sure the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs is where our hearts are, but would you support say "South Western Sydney Bulldogs"?

It would also help with players being lost to other codes I reckon.

So... opinions....

1. Would you like to see Super League v2.0 make a comeback to compete with the NRL?
2. Would you support the Bulldogs alternative in Super League v2.0 (either both or just them)?

For me the answer is:
1. Absolutely.
2. Both.

 

[coach]

If they started up another league fair enough, but I won't support a team that is not the Canterbury Bankstown Bulldogs
Would you root ya missus if she came home one day and wanted to be called Steve ???

 

[Mr Invisible]

Funny thing is that Broncos won 97 Super League as well.. and infact NQ Cowboys came into the comp as a result of being a Super League side.

Cost wise though, it's claimed it cost almost half a billion :O

 

[Papa Emeritus]

Why would there be another Bulldogs? It doesn't make sense for the club to manage 2 teams, and if it isn't affiliated with our Bulldogs, why would they choose that name?

I don't believe another Super League would ever happen anyway though so I won't give this idea much thought but I will say that the first Super League comp killed my interest in League for a very long time so I wouldn't want it to happen again.

 

[CMP]

If Super League was done right in the first place it would have been a success by now with its own culture and history forged.

The problem was they went with standing clubs. Which created a division. They should have launched brand new Franchise clubs. With the current clubs still playing as they always did in a second tier comp. Acting as feeder clubs to the Elite Super League.

4 x New franchises for Sydney
4 x Franchises for QLD
Canberra
Melbourne
Adelaide
Perth
NZ
Darwin/PNG

Should have been a 14 team national comp with a full home & away season.

People would still have their spiritual club to support in a second tier local comp. And it wouldn’t take long to adjust and align with a respective Elite new Franchise.

Cannot happen now though.

 

[UmoGus]

What actually happened in the super league war? Before my time

 

[CroydonDog]

I understand the frustrations, but I don't think we need another Super League.

I appreciate the reasons for the first SL, and in the end I think the game is stronger for it, but the reasons for having one now are not the same.

 

[CMP]

What actually happened in the super league war? Before my time

The Super League war was the dispute over control of the top-level professional rugby league competition in Australia and New Zealand in the mid-1990s, between the Australian Rugby League (ARL) and Super League (Australia).

Super League, backed by Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation, competed with the ARL, supported by Kerry Packer and Optus Vision, in and out of court for broadcasting rights and supremacy in the sport.
Super League had attracted several clubs disenchanted with the existing administration, and introduced two new clubs, as it attempted to establish itself as the dominant competition. After much legal action, when the ARL tried to block the new league, Super League ran one season parallel to the ARL's in 1997.
At the conclusion of that season a peace deal was reached and the two leagues united to form the National Rugby League, which continues today.

Wikipedia

 

[Dognacious]

What we need is Referees 1.0 not Super league 2.0. Refs are still in alpha version.

 

[dogluva]

What we need is Referees 1.0 not Super league 2.0. Refs are still in alpha version.

Like a series one of a motor vehicle. Plenty of problems and for the most part shit......

 

[Kelpie03]

I believe that a completely new competition could be easily set up, all it needs is backing from a media outlet because their the ones that can supply the money.

 

[Vlasnik]

we don't need a separate competition all we need is an independent review board, a watch dog if you will like the ACCC not governed by the NRL but with the ability to sanction the NRL over it's miss handling's and to give the clubs a voice when they have a grievance to air.

 

[habs]

This time superleague might succeed.

 

[Heckler]

Competition is healthy. Bring it!

 

[Bozzo]

Competition is healthy. Bring it!

I just realised your avatar photo makes me think you're yelling each time I read your posts... lol

 

[Anditsgone]

With ever growing waivering discontent surrounding the NRL, crowds dropping, betting taking a stranglehold, and officialdom at the worst it has ever been, one has to wonder.

Change only occurs through competition or choice. When competition rolls into town, the business has no choice but to adopt change to counter against the new competition.

However when no competition exists, then the business is free to run unopposed, and unquestioned.

In every other industry and business, there is competition.... except most sports.

Now for most that isn't a problem: AFL, Rugby, A League rarely suffer the constant scrutiny and screwups that the NRL are constantly sweeping under the ever growing rug.

So with all this in mind... is it time?

Do we need to see the development of a rival competition, in order to force the NRL into making changes for the good of the game?

I'm not talking about a new competition that could out the NRL totally (although at the current point in time I wouldn't mind that), but if something was to come up that forced the hand of the NRL into major changes, surely that would only be good for all.

If some of the games power brokers branched off though, would you support an opposing league?

Sure the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs is where our hearts are, but would you support say "South Western Sydney Bulldogs"?

It would also help with players being lost to other codes I reckon.

So... opinions....

1. Would you like to see Super League v2.0 make a comeback to compete with the NRL?
2. Would you support the Bulldogs alternative in Super League v2.0 (either both or just them)?

For me the answer is:
1. Absolutely.
2. Both.

I like how you are thinking of ways to help the game,
And you have focused on completion to force the NRL to do better and improve.

But it’s a no from me on a split comp as you have described.

In saying that,
I often wonder how things would have panned out if there was a spit comp.

This might get long so stay with me.

Go back to the 80s

Rather than adding broncos to the Sydney comp

Rather help the Brisbane comp grow.
Imagine a nsw comp and qld comp both equally strong and able to offer its players same salary levels

Imagine the Queensland comp growing and covering the Northan territory and Western Australia.
And the Sydney comp covering Melbourne and south Australia

And rather than state of origin as we know it, players are encouraged to play in their respective comp of origin and origin teams are made up of players from those respective comps

Kinda like it was originally
Only differences is players like Maninga and Beetson can stay in the Queensland comp and represent the Queensland origin team rather than chase money in the Sydney comp

I wonder how that model would have worked

My opinion, the game would have grown more nationally by now with that model than what we now have

By the way
The 2 comps whilst separate all operate under the NRL banner to ensure both comps are strong and grow

 

[Heckler]

I just realised your avatar photo makes me think you're yelling each time I read your posts... lol

Funny thing is i do heckle and yell at games lol.

 

[Wahesh]

With ever growing waivering discontent surrounding the NRL, crowds dropping, betting taking a stranglehold, and officialdom at the worst it has ever been, one has to wonder.

Change only occurs through competition or choice. When competition rolls into town, the business has no choice but to adopt change to counter against the new competition.

However when no competition exists, then the business is free to run unopposed, and unquestioned.

In every other industry and business, there is competition.... except most sports.

Now for most that isn't a problem: AFL, Rugby, A League rarely suffer the constant scrutiny and screwups that the NRL are constantly sweeping under the ever growing rug.

So with all this in mind... is it time?

Do we need to see the development of a rival competition, in order to force the NRL into making changes for the good of the game?

I'm not talking about a new competition that could out the NRL totally (although at the current point in time I wouldn't mind that), but if something was to come up that forced the hand of the NRL into major changes, surely that would only be good for all.

If some of the games power brokers branched off though, would you support an opposing league?

Sure the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs is where our hearts are, but would you support say "South Western Sydney Bulldogs"?

It would also help with players being lost to other codes I reckon.

So... opinions....

1. Would you like to see Super League v2.0 make a comeback to compete with the NRL?
2. Would you support the Bulldogs alternative in Super League v2.0 (either both or just them)?

For me the answer is:
1. Absolutely.
2. Both.

The problem with a rival competition is that it drives fans away. Many fans, Bulldogs included, walked away from rugby league during the Super League war. This will only drive more fans away.

If you want to fix the issues with the game, then... fix them! They aren't beyond repair. The referees need an overall, the bunker system needs to go, and there has to be only ONE referee in the game.

- Referees have all proved how incompetent they are. They SHOULD be forced to be in a post-match press conference in order to justify their decisions and keep the pressure on them to perform. If they make 1 bad call that turns out to be crucial, they should be dropped, and it should come out of their salary.

- One referee per game is a must. 2 referees are stuffing up the game and they continue to over-rule each other. It's making the game confusing for everyone.

- The bunker has been a failure since it was brought it. It must go, bring back the video ref.

 

[Dingo]

No and No. The Super League war almost destroyed the game don't you remember?.
In those times I stopped watching the game altogether and I would again, as would a lot of fans.
South Western Sydney Bulldogs, please.

 

[Mr Invisible]

No and No. The Super League war almost destroyed the game don't you remember?.
In those times I stopped watching the game altogether and I would again, as would a lot of fans.
South Western Sydney Bulldogs, please.

Competition is healthy. Currently without any the NRL are fine to run rampant and not listen to fans.

When there is no alternative, people are forced to "make do" with what is offered up.