2017 Draw

ryno_ wrote:

ITT: A game plan that has your team leading from the 7th minute til after the full time siren is "shocking". The game plan literally could not have come any closer to winning them a ring. Fuck me. If you rate a team that lost the GF in golden point as "shocking" and "unsuccessful", what grade do you give the other 14 teams? They'll want to pour a warm bath and open their wrists up after you're done with them.

Also ITT: The competition is even. So even that 1 team is expected to win and if they don't their entire decade is a failure.

If you asked 16 club presidents, right now, if they considered making the 2017 Grand Final a successful season, how many do you think would say no?

Majority of the Broncos supporters that I have spoken to have rubbished the game plan for the final twenty minutes. Like I said they were lucky to get to golden point, Linnett dropped the ball over the line as an example. Broncos shut up shop and didn't win. The aim of the game is to win.

Like I have said, you have taken the comment out of context and now we're not talking about what I spoke about. The Broncos haven't won a premiership for ten years. That is not successful when I am talking about ultimate success.

For example, let's say they don't win for a hundred years but make the finals every year. Would you call them a successful club? No. They haven't won the ultimate goal. They have been good enough to get near it but not good enough to win.

Club presidents will call it a success because a) it hasn't happened yet and b) they're about the $$$.

You ask the Broncos players if they felt they were successful at the NRL grand final in 2015. How many do you think would say yes?

The Broncos thing is weird these days.

"They used to have massive salary cap advantages way back in the days"
"That explains all the premierships"
"It's funny to see how they're not winning premierships now they're not getting the cap advantages any more"
.
.
.
"They're under performing over the last decade, considering all their advantages"

Not having a go at anyone in particular there, just referencing the anti-Bronco's zeitgest.

Clearly success is different for each side, and what phase that side is in.

For a side like the current broncos - their goal would be to win the premiership.
Same with the storm, sharks, cowboys and bulldogs - and roosters and souths at a stretch.
They are at their peaks, they are not really "rebuilding" (even though most sides are constantly doing this) - they are trying to win the whole thing, and right now.

This year, the raiders would 100% have a goal of winning the comp. Last year their goal wouldnt have been that. So yes, the raiders had a successful season without wining the comp.
I think that penrith will have a stretch goal of winning the comp, but their most realistic goal would be making the top 4, winning all their home games etc.

For sides like the warriors, tigers, Titans their stretch goal would be to win the comp - but realistically, making the finals and being consistent would be a successful season for them.

A side like the Knights, I doubt their goals would even revolve around winning games at this current time. It would be more about how players are developing at cutting out mistakes, getting more consistent. They wont make the finals next year.

Success is not black and white - but for sure, a side like the broncos would be aiming to win the comp right now - and if they dont its not a successful season.

dasherhalo wrote:The Broncos thing is weird these days.

"They used to have massive salary cap advantages way back in the days"
"That explains all the premierships"
"It's funny to see how they're not winning premierships now they're not getting the cap advantages any more"
.
.
.
"They're under performing over the last decade, considering all their advantages"

Not having a go at anyone in particular there, just referencing the anti-Bronco's zeitgest.

A lot of my thought process would be biased #noshit but it's not far from the truth. Broncos had one of the best teams ever assembled and as a result wok premierships on the back of that. If they were legit under the cap, which there'd no suggestion they weren't other than the question of how you had that many internationals without breaching somewhere,then they've balanced their books to perfection.

What I think most see their advantage as now is they've got prime time TV which allows for more TPA which gives them more money to spend on more elite players. However as as been pointed out they need to travel where as Sydney teams may not.

Honeysett wrote:

Majority of the Broncos supporters that I have spoken to have rubbished the game plan for the final twenty minutes. Like I said they were lucky to get to golden point, Linnett dropped the ball over the line as an example. Broncos shut up shop and didn't win. The aim of the game is to win.

Like I have said, you have taken the comment out of context and now we're not talking about what I spoke about. The Broncos haven't won a premiership for ten years. That is not successful when I am talking about ultimate success.

For example, let's say they don't win for a hundred years but make the finals every year. Would you call them a successful club? No. They haven't won the ultimate goal. They have been good enough to get near it but not good enough to win.

Club presidents will call it a success because a) it hasn't happened yet and b) they're about the $$$.

You ask the Broncos players if they felt they were successful at the NRL grand final in 2015. How many do you think would say yes?

Supporters who rubbish the gameplan are idiots. It can't have come any closer to winning a premiership in 2015. It's won premierships in the past. Saying they "didnt play to win" is a gross oversimplification. They had a lead. They played to hold that lead, which they managed to hold until after the full time siren.

So there were no successful teams in 2007 & 2009 then? Not one, by your standard. What rubbish.

Ask the players, president, fans, coaches, whoever, if 2015 was a successful season. The vast majority would say yes. Only absolute flogs would answer "oh, well the gameplan in the last 20 minutes was shit and cos we lost in golden point, the means the past 30 weeks of football have been a failure.". Ask McCullough, Gillett, Reed, Oates, Hunt if their careers have been complete failures. I reckon I know the answer.

ryno_ wrote:

Supporters who rubbish the gameplan are idiots. It can't have come any closer to winning a premiership in 2015. It's won premierships in the past. Saying they "didnt play to win" is a gross oversimplification. They had a lead. They played to hold that lead, which they managed to hold until after the full time siren.

So there were no successful teams in 2007 & 2009 then? Not one, by your standard. What rubbish.

Ask the players, president, fans, coaches, whoever, if 2015 was a successful season. The vast majority would say yes. Only absolute flogs would answer "oh, well the gameplan in the last 20 minutes was shit and cos we lost in golden point, the means the past 30 weeks of football have been a failure.". Ask McCullough, Gillett, Reed, Oates, Hunt if their careers have been complete failures. I reckon I know the answer.  

Once again you're going to the extreme to try and stress your point and warping and misinterpreting the point I'm making.

The Broncos had a goal to win the premiership, they didn't do it, they failed in that goal. Failure is not a success when your goal is the premiership.

I was alluding to ultimate success from the start. Let's break this down simply.

Honeysett says when referring to a ten year period that the Broncos haven't won a premiership and therefore are not successful in their goals.

Ryno says we're have success because we lost a grand final once in ten years.

Put it this way, I support the Swans in the AFL. You think I'm happy about 2016? We had a chance to win a grand final and we lost, we didn't succeed - cool we made a grand final, we lost it so it doesn't mean shit. The players won't be happy about it at all - they wouldn't sit back during pre season and say that's good enough.

Are the Warriors a successful club? Previously to this year were Cronulla? Both sides have made the finals in recent years, Warriors have lost what 2 or 3 grand finals now? If you're a club that is good enough to have a premiership window and don't then you have failed.

..

Honeysett wrote:
Put it this way, I support the Swans in the AFL.  

Didn't need to read any further.
I can no longer take you seriously.  

filthridden wrote:

Didn't need to read any further.
I can no longer take you seriously.  

Born in Sydney mate, it's a formality.

Honeysett wrote:

What I think most see their advantage as now is they've got prime time TV which allows for more TPA which gives them more money to spend on more elite players. However as as been pointed out they need to travel where as Sydney teams may not.

Big assumption to make. If the number of prime-time free to air games determined the amount of TPA's that were made to a club's players, which then was the major factor in determining how the team went, then Parramatta, Tigers, Dragons and the Panthers would be up there with the Roosters, Souths and Bulldogs as the most successful Sydney teams in the last 10-20 years. Instead they would be close to the least successful in that time. Manly, which probably has less FTA prime time games than any of those has easily been the most successful Sydney team of the last decade.

Dip wrote:

Big assumption to make. If the number of prime-time free to air games determined the amount of TPA's that were made to a club's players, which then was the major factor in determining how the team went, then Parramatta, Tigers, Dragons and the Panthers would be up there with the Roosters, Souths and Bulldogs as the most successful Sydney teams in the last 10-20 years. Instead they would be close to the least successful in that time. Manly, which probably has less FTA prime time games than any of those has easily been the most successful Sydney team of the last decade.

I agree big assumption to make, however the Broncos are a one team town in a capital city whereas the ones you mentioned will all be fighting for TPA in one city. Huge difference.

Brisbane have Primetime games in a market where they can push TPAs higher than other teams.

Say NRMA insurance are a TPA (I know they are a sponsor just using the field as an example). There would be a heap of insurance companies that could potentially line up and secure a deal with the Broncos to get a player to represent them in some ads but because there is only one team there they have to pay more money to get that spot. Where as in Sydney if the Roosters want to push for a higher deal the company could go to the Rabbits at a price they're willing to pay.

As a result of the primetime games (as well as a history of success - lets not discount that) they can offer more TPAs than most if not all clubs. However I'm not saying that's the Broncos fault, they're making the most of a broken system.

Honeysett wrote:

I agree big assumption to make, however the Broncos are a one team town in a capital city whereas the ones you mentioned will all be fighting for TPA in one city. Huge difference.

Brisbane have Primetime games in a market where they can push TPAs higher than other teams.

Say NRMA insurance are a TPA (I know they are a sponsor just using the field as an example). There would be a heap of insurance companies that could potentially line up and secure a deal with the Broncos to get a player to represent them in some ads but because there is only one team there they have to pay more money to get that spot. Where as in Sydney if the Roosters want to push for a higher deal the company could go to the Rabbits at a price they're willing to pay.

As a result of the primetime games (as well as a history of success - lets not discount that) they can offer more TPAs than most if not all clubs. However I'm not saying that's the Broncos fault, they're making the most of a broken system.

This line of reasoning seems to go exactly against what you are saying and support what I am saying. If the Broncos have access to more TPA's (which I reckon they would), then because they're the only club in a one team town, it's hard to tell if it's due to FTA exposure, or simply because they're a one team town in a large market (which I expect is the primary reason - regardless of FTA exposure), or another factor for that matter. However in an environment where you take out the one team town reason, ie Sydney, the history of some teams with high FTA exposure such as the Eels, Dragons, Tigers etc doesn't seem to give them as high TPA possibilities than other teams with similar exposure in the same market such as the Dogs, Rabbits and Roosters.

Maybe FTA coverage is only a very small factor in TPA agreements, and it's more about the size of the market they're in, and how well the club is actually run.

I think it's pretty indisputable that it would give the club greater sponsorship opportunities, but that helps with a few things such as profitability, expenditure on coaching staff and other club requirements, but not actually the player group, as their salary is limited by the cap.

There are a zillion factors in play, some with bigger impacts than others. TPA's travel etc. Some might argue that being a publicly listed company is a disadvantage to the Broncos because there is a return required to investors, and they have obligations under Corporations Law. Clubs that are affiliated with leagues clubs whose constitutions forbid a distribution to members do not have this required payment to budget for.