Sonny Set To Leave The NRL

[Hamm.0]

True, BUT the amount of players who have left Australia to go play in England, Union, France etc, in the last say 5 or so years, is much more than we ever would have anticipated. It's a growing trend, and moving over-seas to play Union or League is an attractive option for player, MORE SO now than what it has been in previous decades.

Wait right there Shaun.

Please name a list of elite players, that have moved over to Super League, that are NOT nearing the end of their career's?

I will be able to reason that all, less 10 (maybe 20 at most) aren't critical to the game's appeal to the wider audience in Australia.

Please people, name "all" these players.

 

[Beachy]

2: He said "I am not authorised to speak on behalf of Sonny Bill", to which Weidler replied "so you are not his manager?" Khoder: "That's correct". So I don't really understand that...

From memory, Nasser hasn't got NRL accreditation which could be where he's coming from on that one ... eusa_think

 

[Beachy]

Everyone keeps saying it's all Gallops fault - news flash it isn't. Sure he and the NRL could do more to keep players happy, but this Sonny-Bail caper has nothing to do with him.

Fact of the matter is Sonny-Bill Williams was under contract with the Bulldogs that doesn't expire for another 4 years. He had no get out clause in his contract, meaning unless he asked for a release he was at Cantebury for another 4 years. What he did was unethical, immoral and a dog's act of the highest order.

If he had half a brain he would have asked for a get-out clause in his contract. What a dickhead.

As for Danny Weidler's hard-hitting interview with Choder Nasser, what a cop out. If Chode isn't Sonny-Bill's manager as he declared, then WHY THE **** DID DANNY THE DOUCHE INTERVIEW HIM!!! **** waste of my 2 minutes. No doubt Danny is going to think of a sob story for the dog ****.

This whole deal is bullshit. SBW, Chode and Danny should all go to France so we don't have to hear from them ever again.

Nail on head [eusa_clap.gi

 

[Hamm.0]

Ok firstly, let me say that whether you think these players are "critical to the games appeal" is quite subjective.

Correct, it is subjective, as many of those players listed are IMO, not critical to the games appeal.

As for NZ players (Lauititi's, Meli's, etc.), they have always tended to drift toward SL, as it doesn't effect their rep careers at all.

Out of that list, which I am quite impressed with BTW (which website did you use? eusa_think ), only Matt King, Matt Peterson, Bailey, Berrigan and maybe Webster raise my eyebrows.

The older players, albeit great players in their prime, were quite simply....not in their prime. That is half the reason they left. I can't remember any NRL club making a pitch for Barrett? Mogg had already signed, prior to his SoO standout performances. Flannery was well over, as was Morrison, Hicks,etc. Scott Hill? lolz. scraping mate, Sherwin was more consistent then Hill.

Great list, no one stands out on it. Even the most diehard Chcken Little's wouldn't be overly impressed with those names and I fear Shaun, you are missing a vital point. if those players hadn't of moved on, the other thread, entitled "Rookies of the Year" wouldn't have many names in it.

I will sit back, still convinced that the sky hasn't fallen.

 

[Hamm.0]

NOW, I know you're going to say that these guys weren't critical to the games appeal. Well you're wrong. Some of these guys could have excelled and players for Australia in test matches by now. Some for NZ. Some for NSW and QLD. They all add up, there is a lot of talent above.

Forget my last post, now I have reread this paragraph, I can get my point across more clearly.

Some of them MAY have played for Australia by now. The only ones on that list who possibly would have made Australia would be Berrigan, Mogg, King and maybe Bailey. For QLD, maybe Berrigan, Mogg. For NSW, Bailey and King. For NZ, any eligible player.

However; have a look at this years Origin teams, and then tell me what any of those players (minus Bailey and King, but thats because NSW have shit selectors) could have possibly added to the abundance of talent we had running around????

 

[Hamm.0]

Look Shaun, I agree, but yet I don't agree. Heaps of talent is going overseas, however the sky is falling.

Firstly, it is funny how we League followers are upset that Union takes some of our players, when for pretty much the entire last century, it was the other way around.

There is a bigger picture that everyone seems to be missing.

The NRL just can't match the huge payments. / story.

What do you want them to do? Where do they find the cash? It is simple, they just don't have it. It is impossible and inconceivable to increase the salary cap dramatically, which is why the NRL are doing it slowly and steadily. (Reference my comment earlier; what do people want? People want them to just hand out cash???) The NRL will not be able to match those sorts of player payments in the foreseeable future, so the NRL would have to look at other options. But the important thing is they are looking, no matter what Nine Network tells people, they are.

Cap exempt payments for one club players or marquee signings? Or third party sponsorship? These things will change the face of League forever and from the attitudes of many people I've read on here over the years, destroy what they love about the game. Teams like Souths, NQ, Warriors, Penrith would die within a few years. I mean, who do you think the corporations are going to sponsor? The Cowboys on the bottom or Manly on top? We would be looking at a European soccer-type competition within years. Problem being, our economy isn't big enough to support it, ergo the 16 team comp would dwindle significantly.

I thought the change in the English Tax laws next year, whilst still making England viable option, won't be so great as of next year, then came France. I don't know what the answer is, all I know is they can't bend rules to keep elite players, it will ruin the competition. It's simple economics.

The thing that irks me is rash statements like this;

The problem with the NRL at the moment is that we lose too many quality players elsewhere (too quickly). As a result, the quality of our competition diminishes and fans tend to lose interest.

We have a competition that is massively tight. Games like the Souths/ Newcastle one today, which you claimed was boring, was very exciting to watch. I ask you, which fans lose interest? Because, apart from Sydney (to which all QLD'ers ask, why are there still so many teams there) most games I see are quite healthy for League crowds. I just have never met someone (I guess apart from on here) who reckons the game now is a poor reflection of what it was. When I see statements like that, I ponder if you are watching the same games. Do you think the Storm 07 Premiership side was a more entertaining outfit than the 01 Knights, 02 Roosters, and 03 Panthers? IMO, they were far and away more entertaining and more marketable. IMHO, throw in the 06 Broncos too. Also, have a look at the 08 QLD side. That backline was dripping with talent. More talent than we have seen in one team for years.

I just can't buy that the quality of the players running around is any less then previous seasons.

FTR; That team you listed looks good, however many of those players didn't leave just for the coin, many of them are a little long in the tooth and the Kiwi players are still eligible to play for NZ. Just not in the one off ANZAC Test (because they chased coin [icon_wink )

 

[Coxy]

I keep saying it, the issue about players leaving our game is a big one that the NRL should investigate ways to alleviate. However, that's not the $BW issue.

The $BW is, purely and simply, about contracts. The NRL CAN NOT stand by and let this happen without serious repercussions for $BW, Khoder Nasshole and whatever French club has signed him. If no injunction can be sought, all three parties should be sued for damages by the NRL and the Bulldogs.

The money will be a drop in the ocean for them, but it'll be a statement.

This fight isn't over, and neither is the war.

 

[Dexter]

Ppl should be careful what they wish for as far as more money from the TV rights is concerned.
Gallop has been panned for underselling our product (euchh, I hate that term) but he is limited as to how hard they can push.
1 station has AFL that leaves 2 stations of which 1 is sharing AFL content.
So what does Gallop do when he says I want more? CH 9 says that's it there is no more, and nowhere else to sell the coverage to.
That leaves pay TV and if they get a strangle hold we will very quickly be paying for league as a seperate package on FOX if not seperate games as a main event (like the boxing) and free to air will be getting the worst games every week.
Like Hammo has said the NRL just isn't big enough to compete with the massive payments being offered elsewhere.

 

[Coxy]

Agreed. Until another FTA network shows significant interest, we're dictated to by channel 9.

However, once pay TV reaches a fairly wide subscription base, the value of the rights there will come down to ratings. If the NRL is still rating as well as it is now then there'll be argument for more cha ching.

 

[mick]

For every Gas and $BW that leaves the game, 10 juniors will step up. That's just the way it is. The game, in its current form, can't match the big money thrown around overseas and we're just going to have to accept that players will leave.

The reason why this issue is SO horrible is solely because the merkin was ONE year into a 5 year contract, didn't seek a release, didn't tell anyone. An absolute dog act of the highest order. Gas, on the other hand, was off contract, did everything legally and IMO has not damaged the game in the slightest.

Gasnier and Cooper were the Australian centre pairing, along with Berrigan, a few years ago and no one looked even likely to be anywhere near that. Fast forward to this year, and no one can really say that a fully fit Gas and Cooper could come close to matching it with Inglis, Hodges or Folau. The game is cyclical, there are ALWAYS more great juniors being produced and there will always be young fellas improving and making the step up.

 

[Coxy]

Exactly Mick. The issue isn't $BW, it isn't Mark Gasnier...players come, players go. Hell, I've never been sucked into the $BW bandwagon. I've never thought he was that good. Good, yes, but not the best thing since sliced bread, bro.

The manner of his betrayal is absolutely appalling and must be dealt with.

 

[lynx000]

Re the money issue, until we can supply a truly national competition like the AFL, league will have difficulty competing against the AFL for television rights. It stands to reason that the TV stations are prepared to pay more for a product that offers exposure across all of Australia as opposed to primarily Queensland and New South Wales.

Re the legal options available against Sonny Bill, if there is an iron clad contract Canterbury will have an action for breach of contract in which they can seek common law damages arising from his breach. This may be difficult to quantify, but given that he is one of their key marketing tools responsible for bringing larger crowds to the games, the potential damages could be quite high. If they were successful in obtaining a damages award this could be enforced against any property/assets he owned in Australia, and possibly, if the judgment were registered in France against assets there.

There is also the possibility of an injunction to restrain him from playing for another code/club. The difficulty with this is, it would be issued by an Australian Court and therefore its jurisdiction would be limited. If that injunction was served upon him, and he acted contrary to the terms of the injunction he would be in contempt of court and possibly face sanctions including custody. This would only occur upon his return to Australia and in particular New South Wales (assuming that is where the injunction was obtained).

The difficulty will be enforcing the injunction in France. Unless there is mutual recognition of court orders and some mechanism for registering and enforcing the injunction via the french court system, the injunction will not assist in stopping him from playing for a french club. So there is a possibility he will get away with it. It all adds up to it will cost a heap of money to go after him.

That is my two cents worth.

 

[dukey]

The backlash against SBW is so immense that nobody will miss him. The people hurt most are the Bulldogs and the NZ World Cup squad. There are plenty of talented NZ players in the NRL for Kiwis to follow and plenty more coming through the ranks. And there are a lot of well built men in the game for girls to get excited over. Wasn't Brett Stewart the hottest thing on two legs a year ago?
Sonny's legacy is one of hypocrisy, disloyalty and greed. Players like that, no matter how good, are quickly forgotten. Hopefully he is in the news for a few months more while the Bulldogs sue him for everything. However the real villain here will have already taken his cut and be safe from that.
Khoder Nasser is a scumbag. Without him chasing his cut SBW would have only been in the news this year for on-field exploits. In the space of a year SBW has gone from being a passionate loyal Bulldog who blasted his money chasing teammates, to a disciple of the Mundine rule: I Am Bigger Than My Sport, Therefore I Am Beyond Reproach. I don't mean to excuse SBW for his actions but I lay the blame firmly at the feet of his manager, and I hope to God that no other athletes in the world are stupid enough to risk their reputations by signing with him.

 

[schmix]

Agreed. Until another FTA network shows significant interest, we're dictated to by channel 9.

However, once pay TV reaches a fairly wide subscription base, the value of the rights there will come down to ratings. If the NRL is still rating as well as it is now then there'll be argument for more cha ching.

There was a letter in the SMH sports pages about a week ago from one of the Foxtel bigwigs about this. She said that the amount they pay for tv rights is based on the number of new subscribers the product brings in. So the last NRL deal was bigger because everyone was signing up then, but now I guess they figure everyone who is going to sign up specifically to watch NRL already has, which is why the deal is lower. To me, this suggests that we're not about to get any more money out of them any time soon.

 

[Coxy]

Yeah, but their argument is that their business is only about gaining new subscribers. They will come to a point where their focus is about retaining existing subscribers, and if the NRL is a significant selling point for that, they will be able to command more dollars.

 

[mal]

Weren't Channel 7 hinting at bidding for the NRL rights?

 

[Coxy]

I think they showed interest, but weren't even prepared to match 9's offer.

 

[mick]

A big point that HAS to change when it comes to the next TV rights deal is to leave the NRL and Origin as SEPARATE entities.

It's a travesty how much our game misses out on in terms of dollars at the moment. With an audience of 3 million nationwide or larger, three times a year, Origin simply has to have it's own top-dollar TV deal IMO.