Rugby League a professional game since 1895

Spewing

Cancelled
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Posts
823
Likes
0
Location
Fenerbahca Istanbull
Other Teams
Manly Warringah SeaEagles
Thread starter #1
And Rugby union since 1995,my point is. The reason why union went proffesional is because RL was dominating in every angle ,and union had no option but only to compete with the world dominance of RL.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Spewing

Cancelled
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Posts
823
Likes
0
Location
Fenerbahca Istanbull
Other Teams
Manly Warringah SeaEagles
Thread starter #3
It's amazing how News Limited spent nearly 600 hundred million dollars on Rugby League in It's 1st year of operation .ARL vs SUPERLEAGUE war must had cost a staggering 1 billion dollars??........:eek:
 

Gman

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Posts
1,090
Likes
3
Location
Downunder
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
MUFC
#4
It's amazing how News Limited spent nearly 600 hundred million dollars on Rugby League in It's 1st year of operation .ARL vs SUPERLEAGUE war must had cost a staggering 1 billion dollars??........:eek:
Wrong again

100,000 unless proven otherwise

News Limited has claimed that the entire Super League exercise cost them $100,000,000, however "an article" in the Australian Financial Review on 5 August 2005 has put the cost at as high as $560,000,000.
1k in a pub u say?
 
Joined
May 12, 2006
Posts
321
Likes
0
AFL Club
Sydney
#8
Wrong again

100,000 unless proven otherwise
I'll assume you forgot the three extra zeros.

News Corporation payed the RFL roughly £87m. That's what, $200m of your convict dollars? Look at that, you can't help but be wrong can you?

http://www.uknetguide.co.uk/Sports/Rugby_League/Super_League_Clubs.html

Mo was right by the way. The clubs shouldn't have been let near that money, and it should have been spent on development projects like stadiums. Five Million Quid would probably get you a nice 12,000 all seater stadium in the late 1990's...
 

ParraEelsNRL

Premiership Player
Suspended
Joined
Jun 26, 2003
Posts
3,762
Likes
0
Location
Boganville (Wollongong)
Other Teams
Parramatta eels
#9
I'll assume you forgot the three extra zeros.

News Corporation payed the RFL roughly £87m. That's what, $200m of your convict dollars? Look at that, you can't help but be wrong can you?

http://www.uknetguide.co.uk/Sports/Rugby_League/Super_League_Clubs.html

Mo was right by the way. The clubs shouldn't have been let near that money, and it should have been spent on development projects like stadiums. Five Million Quid would probably get you a nice 12,000 all seater stadium in the late 1990's...
lol

How much would it have cost them to stage the WCC alone, plus all the other international tournaments they had at the time?

And they say RL isn't international :rolleyes:

Those two years alone had more International RL than all the years following.

Then they stopped, no wonder people think only three countries :rolleyes: play.:rolleyes:
 

0497

All Australian
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Posts
814
Likes
8
Location
SYD
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Lions
#10
The only reason union is pro now is because of the SL war, if there was no war, RL would have had to money to buy all of the union players it wanted and that would of been the end of union as we know it.

http://www.answers.com/topic/super-league-australia
I think that's part of why union went pro. A lot of union players were already going to RL during union's amateur days.

Another reason was that they feared the RL divide would happen in union sidelining the traditional administrators. As a result SANZAR (Sth Afr, NZ ands Aust Rugby) approached NewsCorp and so the Super Rugby was formed - NewsCorp's PayTV development needed content.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Posts
2,418
Likes
240
AFL Club
Sydney
#11
And Rugby union since 1995,my point is. The reason why union went proffesional is because RL was dominating in every angle ,and union had no option but only to compete with the world dominance of RL.
The only reason union is pro now is because of the SL war, if there was no war, RL would have had to money to buy all of the union players it wanted and that would of been the end of union as we know it.

http://www.answers.com/topic/super-league-australia
I thought it was because Rugby was a big international sport of elite sportmen who weren't being payed well enough for their efforts. Similar to the Cricketers before Packer came along and then again in the 90's when Waugh and co in the Players association demanded a level of pay to warrant the hectic schedules and tour demands.

World dominance of RL? excuse me Union is bigger than RL on the international stage. The World Cup has many more compeitive nations and alot more international interest.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Spewing

Cancelled
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Posts
823
Likes
0
Location
Fenerbahca Istanbull
Other Teams
Manly Warringah SeaEagles
Thread starter #12
I thought it was because Rugby was a big international sport of elite sportmen who weren't being payed well enough for their efforts. Similar to the Cricketers before Packer came along and then again in the 90's when Waugh and co in the Players association demanded a level of pay to warrant the hectic schedules and tour demands.

World dominance of RL? excuse me Union is bigger than RL on the international stage. The World Cup has many more compeitive nations and alot more international interest.
They would have been Cactus (the unions) as we know it .Had they not gone professional in 1995 ............:D
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Posts
2,418
Likes
240
AFL Club
Sydney
#13
They would have been Cactus (the unions) as we know it .Had they not gone professional in 1995 ............:D
Any particular sport would have been if it didn't introduce large player payments. Its a competitive market, but all due to RL? no, due to every professional sport more likely.
 

Spewing

Cancelled
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Posts
823
Likes
0
Location
Fenerbahca Istanbull
Other Teams
Manly Warringah SeaEagles
Thread starter #14
Any particular sport would have been if it didn't introduce large player payments. Its a competitive market, but all due to RL? no, due to every professional sport more likely.
All due to RL "NO"???????:rolleyes: , more like yes.If it wasn't for the ARL vs SUPERLEAGUE war the union would still be amateur as we speak.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Posts
2,418
Likes
240
AFL Club
Sydney
#15
All due to RL "NO"???????:rolleyes: , more like yes.If it wasn't for the ARL vs SUPERLEAGUE war the union would still be amateur as we speak.
Rugby had to compete in a very competitive market with EVERY professional sport.
So yes RL had an effect, but so did every other sport. "All" due to RL - no.

You'd have to be crazy to think that the IRB conciously thought "Lets go professional.....uh....now" when the Super League war occurred.

The 90's was a big decade for the commecialisation of all sports.
 

ParraEelsNRL

Premiership Player
Suspended
Joined
Jun 26, 2003
Posts
3,762
Likes
0
Location
Boganville (Wollongong)
Other Teams
Parramatta eels
#16
Packer was the one who went after union, Rupert had RL, if Packer didn't get union, Rupert and RL would have stripped union bare.

Ever heard of Rugby Ltd?

It includes Union and League.

That's the whole point, union didn't want to come out into the open, their game was pure, the devils game (Pro Rugby) already existed.

Just before union went open, the Wallabies, NZ and Sth Africa were all about to jump ship, it was reported that these 3 countries were all about to take the money and join RL.

This forced the hand of the IRB and the RFU, they knew they had to come into the 21st century or die.

The reason you see S14 every Feb is because of the SL war, if Rupert had of won, there would be no Super Rugby Union.

There would be a European SL, a Australasian SL and an African SL, plus it was reported in the 1998 Rugby League year book by David Middleton, it states that on January 31 1997 Super League's International Board chairman Maurice Lindsay announces that business interests are prepared to invest $60 million into a eight-team competition in Japan.

As for union being this big international sport lmao.

If you remember, their first UWC in Australia couldn't even get 15,000 into Concorde oval for the final.

In Europe, union could get crowds for internationals, in NZ also, but everywhere else they couldn't, Sth Africa couldn't, Australia couldn't, so there is two of the Biggest union countries already taken out.

All that leaves you with is England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and France, yet back then, they only played a couple of tests each year in the 5 nations, and a test or two against Aus and NZ every couple of years when a tour was on.

Nowadays, people are complaining that union has too many internationals, the same teams all the time, but even more than before, that's why the crowds are slowly falling and the TV ratings are on a big dive.

All union has is internationals, take them away and it starts to look very sick.

They have always relied on IRU to get the money in, that's why over in England, the club comp has only been around for 10 years, yeah they might be 100 odd years old, but a club comp can not survive on crowds of 100 family and friends.

In the last 10 years, club union in England has been pushed, the media like to print nice big things about it, saying how long a history it has, all the firsts for Rugby happen, a Challenge cup and all the rest, pity the media doesn't print the truth and say, BS, RL has been doing all this in England for 112 years :rolleyes:
 
Top Bottom