Ever since Manly and the storm locked horns, threw a few haymakers the community has been split. Is it good or bad for the game. While Joe public, the fan, the people who pay to be members, buy the overpriced merchandise and go to games seem to have either loved it of shrugged it off as part of the game, the media and a group of anonymous identities have scorned the game , the image and the eventual financial impact it will have on the brand
The 4 sections of society most opposed to this display seem to be
The kindy kids
The mums
Big business
The media
Firstly the kindy kids. As a father of a 6yo boy, footy is something he doesn't see too often. As the NRL and TV networks have decided that most games should be played at night, past there bedtimes so are they relevant. The only time he has seen the fight is on the news which has been played way to much for such a terrible image. So the kindy kids are a moot point. As a parent it is my job to educate my children on life and I would be a bad parent if I let a football player be a role model
The mums. Are we talking about the mums that have kids that are already enrolled in junior league. The league where the Can Bar opens at 10am, abuse flys at 10.05am. The junior leagues where parents trade blows on the sidelines, where 15 yo referees seek shelter in toilet blocks from irate adult fans, and where most goal posts no longer have a crossbar as the AFL have funded local councils to insist league is not played. Are these the mums that no longer want there kids playing football. These mums that watched in horror as David williams nursed a broken vertebrae in his neck in the same game, but don't want there kids playing footy because a few adults came to blows, or are we talking about a different group of mums that don't, wont and never will allow their sons to play league but love to have an opinion on how others live their lives.
Big business hate the sight of this. Lets ask Gerry Harvey who every year sponsors state of origin, where the players are berated for not brawling enough. Has Gerry ever threatened to end his association with the sport because Brett White smashed Steve Price. I would suggest thousands around the country priced 3D TV the very next day so they could get a more realistic effect. The NRL rolls of statistics and anonymous scenarios but shouldn't the 16 clubs that partner the NRL have direct access to this credible information, and not just told of people pointing from the shadows.
What makes big business pour millions into footy knowing that news ltd will not sign a clause stating they wont start a break away competition again. The fallout from super league is still visible and still clearly impacts the game, its credability, and the reputation of brands that were associated, but business will gladly attach their brands to that possibility , but cower at the sight of a few fisticuffs in a game that has a history of such.
Sorry I just don't believe this at all. It doesn't make business sense to risk so much of their brand, but be so offended by Fridays fight, but not the other 50 this year.Will someone please tell the NRL's partners which sponsor is so perplexed with footy scuffles that they will take their business elsewhere. Does the league have a sponsor policy that all clubs have been educated on, and have a duty of care to promote , foster and protect or do they loosely fail under the subjective banner of bringing the game into disrepute.
The media. The people that make money from sensationalizing every opportunity in life. Recently channel 9 boss David Gyngell was quoted how Australians love mayhem. That most shows on TV are about cop dramas where murder and violence is in big demand, Its what we watch. The same network that aired the game. Has anyone asked channel 9 if they would do a 3 match manly Melbourne mini series after the GF and how much they would pay .
The question I want answered as a fan, is who owns this footage. Do the NRL own the rights to the matches and if it is as horrible as they claim why have they not sanctioned mainstream media to stop showing this . Have they made any approach to any media outlet to get this off our TV screens, have they even asked ?What has the NRL done to restore the Brand in the eyes of the public, but bemoan its occurrence. What strategies do they have in place other than the big stick approach.
They want to sanction players , prevent them from playing by way of a fair judicial process but a fair and judicial process does not allow for media campaigns to influence society before the players have had a chance to represent themselves. As the NRL are in charge of the brand, and selling the brand, and negotiating the contracts with their media partners should these contracts mirror the NR L's grand plan and marketing strategy. If a case is so diabolical that it is referred directly to the judiciary, should all media speculation be suspended until such time, for the good of the BRAND. Should a panel review each and every game directly after the game to ensure the games Brand is protected, or is that too much work for the finger pointers.
In all of life's obstacles you must plan for all situations and it seems the NRL has only 1 plan and that's to make it someone else's responsibility to do their job
The 4 sections of society most opposed to this display seem to be
The kindy kids
The mums
Big business
The media
Firstly the kindy kids. As a father of a 6yo boy, footy is something he doesn't see too often. As the NRL and TV networks have decided that most games should be played at night, past there bedtimes so are they relevant. The only time he has seen the fight is on the news which has been played way to much for such a terrible image. So the kindy kids are a moot point. As a parent it is my job to educate my children on life and I would be a bad parent if I let a football player be a role model
The mums. Are we talking about the mums that have kids that are already enrolled in junior league. The league where the Can Bar opens at 10am, abuse flys at 10.05am. The junior leagues where parents trade blows on the sidelines, where 15 yo referees seek shelter in toilet blocks from irate adult fans, and where most goal posts no longer have a crossbar as the AFL have funded local councils to insist league is not played. Are these the mums that no longer want there kids playing football. These mums that watched in horror as David williams nursed a broken vertebrae in his neck in the same game, but don't want there kids playing footy because a few adults came to blows, or are we talking about a different group of mums that don't, wont and never will allow their sons to play league but love to have an opinion on how others live their lives.
Big business hate the sight of this. Lets ask Gerry Harvey who every year sponsors state of origin, where the players are berated for not brawling enough. Has Gerry ever threatened to end his association with the sport because Brett White smashed Steve Price. I would suggest thousands around the country priced 3D TV the very next day so they could get a more realistic effect. The NRL rolls of statistics and anonymous scenarios but shouldn't the 16 clubs that partner the NRL have direct access to this credible information, and not just told of people pointing from the shadows.
What makes big business pour millions into footy knowing that news ltd will not sign a clause stating they wont start a break away competition again. The fallout from super league is still visible and still clearly impacts the game, its credability, and the reputation of brands that were associated, but business will gladly attach their brands to that possibility , but cower at the sight of a few fisticuffs in a game that has a history of such.
Sorry I just don't believe this at all. It doesn't make business sense to risk so much of their brand, but be so offended by Fridays fight, but not the other 50 this year.Will someone please tell the NRL's partners which sponsor is so perplexed with footy scuffles that they will take their business elsewhere. Does the league have a sponsor policy that all clubs have been educated on, and have a duty of care to promote , foster and protect or do they loosely fail under the subjective banner of bringing the game into disrepute.
The media. The people that make money from sensationalizing every opportunity in life. Recently channel 9 boss David Gyngell was quoted how Australians love mayhem. That most shows on TV are about cop dramas where murder and violence is in big demand, Its what we watch. The same network that aired the game. Has anyone asked channel 9 if they would do a 3 match manly Melbourne mini series after the GF and how much they would pay .
The question I want answered as a fan, is who owns this footage. Do the NRL own the rights to the matches and if it is as horrible as they claim why have they not sanctioned mainstream media to stop showing this . Have they made any approach to any media outlet to get this off our TV screens, have they even asked ?What has the NRL done to restore the Brand in the eyes of the public, but bemoan its occurrence. What strategies do they have in place other than the big stick approach.
They want to sanction players , prevent them from playing by way of a fair judicial process but a fair and judicial process does not allow for media campaigns to influence society before the players have had a chance to represent themselves. As the NRL are in charge of the brand, and selling the brand, and negotiating the contracts with their media partners should these contracts mirror the NR L's grand plan and marketing strategy. If a case is so diabolical that it is referred directly to the judiciary, should all media speculation be suspended until such time, for the good of the BRAND. Should a panel review each and every game directly after the game to ensure the games Brand is protected, or is that too much work for the finger pointers.
In all of life's obstacles you must plan for all situations and it seems the NRL has only 1 plan and that's to make it someone else's responsibility to do their job
