Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Ari Gold, post: 2352874, member: 1917"] Getting rid of two clubs is an absolute must. You do that and you only have to find an extra $28 million! By reducing the number of clubs you also reduce the supply of corporate opportunities, which should then increase the value of sponsorship to those clubs still remaining. To be fair, two less teams also means 1 less broadcast opportunity, but I don't think that would affect negotiations too badly given that it's undervalued already. I also like the idea of a best of 3 Grand Final series. That must be worth a few mil extra in terms of gate receipts, sponsorship dollars and TV revenues in particular. Traditionalists will probably hate it, but I think it has merit. With all that said, I don't necessarily think you need to greatly alter the size of the player payment pool, just it's distribution. Even if you made the cap $10 million, and every club were able to afford it, the reality would still be that the value of the Sharks playing roster is $2 million. The only difference would be the value to which they were overpaying the players, which is really where the extra money can come from. For every star player that leaves the code, you can probably point to an incredibly mediocre player whose salary could have been the difference in keeping said star in the game. How much money did Souths waste over the years by overpaying money to the likes of Colin Best and Shannon Heggarty? When stars leave the game, there's simply not enough quality to sustain 16 attractive football sides, and if the game realized this and reduced the number of roster positions by at least 50 each season, you'd see a lot less D-list players being paid to play NRL, and the C-list players being paid a lot less. And on a final note, I'd like to say how greatly diminished I feel the quality of the NRL competition is by this obsession with equity of talent. If the emphasis were put on quality instead of equity I think you'd have a much more appealing and meaningful product. Honestly, how special is it winning a premiership once in a decade when the intention of the NRL is to basically have every team win it once every sixteen years? And furthermore, surely the best way to attract juniors to Rugby League is by having guys like Thurston, Hayne, Inglis, Gallen and Thaiday run onto the field playing for the same team, rather than some drab, low quality game between two artificially equal opponents. Put differently, I'm sure Federer wiping the floor against some nonameovic is still a more appealing endorsement of the qualities of tennis than John Isner playing Nicholas Mahut. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now