Controversial Opinions

Ari Gold said:
The Storm salary cap rorted with players they developed and should never have had to cheat to keep them because the lack of salary cap exemptions is just ridiculous, and therefore I don't care that they cheated.
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree with your sentiment, rules is rules. That said, I don't think it serves any purpose to "strip" the premierships. The horse has already bolted. The glass is smashed.

The NRL should be more proactive/innovative about the salary cap and introduce incentives (such as rebates for home grown players, exemptions of some description for "one-club" or long standing players")
 
subsbligh said:
Super League had the right idea. Less teams, more money.
Click to expand...
Definitely.
It was a good idea. It was because the big heads in Sydney couldn't get over their non-importance that made Super League fail.
 
mrslong said:
Definitely.
It was a good idea. It was because the big heads in Sydney couldn't get over their non-importance that made Super League fail.
Click to expand...

It was a battle over power - both in control of the game and Pay TV.

It's all hypothetical, but I wonder if they knew then what we know now - that Optus TV was never going to succeed and that Foxtel would have a pay TV monopoly - would the fight have been different? Would the ARL have worked with News Limited instead of against them?

If only they did. We'd be the number 1 football code in Australia right now. We were already nudging AFL in that respect by the end of 1994, and the expansion in 1995 started with huge anticipation. Then the war broke out and deadset we set ourselves back 10 years in the space of 12 months.
 
Coxy said:
State of origin has a negative impact on the competition and should be moved to after the grand final
Click to expand...

Agree it has a negative impact, but disagree with your solution.

Would rather see State of Origin where it is, but played on a stand alone weekend.

Problem then is that you lose 3 rounds of football or extend the season by 3 weeks which also doesn't work (GF in November?).

I am massively in favour of having a non-NRL round during Origin weeks and having a knockout competition involving all teams (or some state league teams that qualify, ala FA Cup) on during the weekends of Origin and ANZAC Test. It could be made into a very high profile competition, like it is in England, and allow emerging clubs/players to have an opportunity to win some silverware and if the sponsorships were right, some prize money.
 
subsbligh said:
Agree it has a negative impact, but disagree with your solution.

Would rather see State of Origin where it is, but played on a stand alone weekend.

Problem then is that you lose 3 rounds of football or extend the season by 3 weeks which also doesn't work (GF in November?).

I am massively in favour of having a non-NRL round during Origin weeks and having a knockout competition involving all teams (or some state league teams that qualify, ala FA Cup) on during the weekends of Origin and ANZAC Test. It could be made into a very high profile competition, like it is in England, and allow emerging clubs/players to have an opportunity to win some silverware and if the sponsorships were right, some prize money.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more!
I would extend this knockout comp to Qcup and NSWcup teams too, just like the FA Cup.
 
Porthoz said:
Couldn't agree more!
I would extend this knockout comp to Qcup and NSWcup teams too, just like the FA Cup.
Click to expand...

PS The idea being that State of Origin players aren't eligible to play the weekend of the "ARL Cup" (so they get rested, no NRL Premiership points at stake)
 
The Rock said:
They will just make the limit $100000 therefore they can lose as much as they want, nothing changes for them.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

They are just masking the issue, not trying to solve it.

Unfortunately the real ones who will suffer are the people you just like to play them every now and again - the people who don't have a gambling addiction - and couldn't be bothered going to the effort of having to setup all this pre-commitment bs. And given they are probably the main users of pokies, the clubs are going to suffer.

You shouldn't penalise the majority to make up for the issues of the minority.

What's worse is the government only cares about it because they are being bent over by Andrew Wilkie, and could potentially lose government without his support. So one guy has the power to #### it up for everybody.
 
OXY-351 said:
Exactly!

They are just masking the issue, not trying to solve it.

Unfortunately the real ones who will suffer are the people you just like to play them every now and again - the people who don't have a gambling addiction - and couldn't be bothered going to the effort of having to setup all this pre-commitment bs. And given they are probably the main users of pokies, the clubs are going to suffer.

You shouldn't penalise the majority to make up for the issues of the minority.

What's worse is the government only cares about it because they are being bent over by Andrew Wilkie, and could potentially lose government without his support. So one guy has the power to #### it up for everybody.
Click to expand...

The thing is the machines with a maximum bet of $1 won't need this mandatory pre-commitment. So that's about 80% of machines anyway from what I can tell!
 
Most 1 cent pokies have a max bet of $5 that is 25 lines x 20c . It's scary watching ppl max bet, I just count the money going down and think what other use it could be going to.

I love a punt on the horses, but I have no time for these things. The idea to limit punters with a problem is sound but I agree they need to find a better way.
 
They can reform pokies whatever way they like but people with a gambling addiction will just find another way to gamble.. You can gamble on anything now.
 
Coxy said:
The thing is the machines with a maximum bet of $1 won't need this mandatory pre-commitment. So that's about 80% of machines anyway from what I can tell!
Click to expand...

Nah, most have a $5 limit, so they would either need to change them to have a max $1 bet or change them to install the required stuff for pre-commitment.
 
Hodges is a good player, I'm glad he's a Bronco and he's looking to shirk rep. duties BUT I think he's seriously overpaid for somebody so injury prone.
 
I love the U20's, sure the defense can be shithouse at times but its fast and unpredictable most of the time and it's that kinda game that will draw fans. The future of Rugby league is 42-30 scorelines with 80minute props and nonstop action.
 
20's certainly have a place and I love what it's doing for the Warriors, North Queensland and Melbourne. However, I still think the code is always going to become defensive dependant and coaches will always find new ways to frustrate the oppositions attack.

I just wish the NRL got behind the Q Cup and NSW Cup more. Both are good competitions that deserve more coverage and would appeal more to the old school fan who grew up with either the BRL or NSWRL.
 
I'd like to see NSW cup bought into line with Q cup and the winners from each comp play on GF day
 
Dexter said:
I'd like to see NSW cup bought into line with Q cup and the winners from each comp play on GF day
Click to expand...

Great idea, it should happen but never will. NSWankers think they are the game.
 
Yep, guaranteeing a Qld side playing on GF day, just won't happen.
 
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 698
1:34:22
NRL Round 25, 1999 - Brisbane Broncos vs Parramatta Eels
View full media list »

Active Now

  • theshed
  • Socnorb
  • Jedhead
  • pennywisealfie
  • Dash
  • kman
  • Battler
  • Wolfie
  • Santa
  • sooticus
  • bb_gun
  • Gympie devil
Total: 131 (members: 17, guests: 114)
Robots: 155
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.