Dear Mr Greenberg,
I've been reading the Daily Telegraph’s summary of the changes you are reported to be considering to ‘improve our game’.
I understand that these are just reports and have not been confirmed, but assuming that the reports are accurate, I want to address some of the proposed changes.
First and foremost Mr Greenberg, the game does not need wholesale changes. Although I enjoyed a well-placed shoulder charge as well as the next fan, I supported the ban on the technique due to the risk vs reward factor.
As for the no punching edict, I’m all for leaving that to the professionals in the ring.
I was even on board with the two referee change, even though I believe it should not return to the one referee system, due to the inconsistencies within 80 minutes we have been subjected to.
I am not again changing the game for the better. I believe the game needs to evolve to keep up with the times so to speak, but I simply see no need for the changes currently on the table to be considered.
I think I speak for the majority of fans, at least those I have spoken with, when I say that we are dead against the introduction of quarters.
Rest periods every 25 minutes will re energise big forwards, thus limiting the chance for the smaller, more explosive players, to create highlight moments as the forwards tire.
Secondly, momentum can change so quickly in our game, so why introduce more breaks?
I am all for drink breaks every 20 minutes, and a minute or two rest during trials and early season games. There is no reason our players shouldn’t be properly looked after in the name of toughness.
Should the temperature ever exceed 30 degrees, I think a drinks break should be at least offered.
That being said, I don’t like the idea of breaking the game into quarters at all.
It changes the game massively in a variety of ways. The game does not need wholesale changes. As seen over the past few years, referees and players are struggling with the intricate rules of the game as is, we don’t need further confusion.
I understand the reasoning for extra commercial breaks, it would mean more money into the game, however we already have to endure too many commercial breaks, and Channel 9 already advertise shows during live play. Surely enough is enough.
I don’t like expanding the bench from four players to eight. This is not Gridiron. We enjoy the battle of attrition that our players embark on, and we do not want a second side sitting fresh on the bench.
I do not support the extending of the bench if any way, shape or form. If anything, there should be less interchange. Gone are the days of five minute spells from the big men. Keep them on the field, get them tired, and watching the tries flow. It’s simple.
Fans don’t need more interviews from players and coaches during additional breaks due to the fact that neither are willing to break from cliché, and when they do, they are fined by the NRL!
Players will recite the usual “we have to stick to the game plan, everyone puts in, it was a team effort” retort, while coaches will closely guard secrets, and refuse to place blame on anyone for fear they will be sanctioned.
This is a complete waste of time and does not interest me at all.
I am not against the idea of expanding the competition. A second Brisbane or New Zealand side, or one based in Perth or the mid NSW coast would be exciting, but I don’t believe the talent pool is deep enough to justify this right now.
In a few years, sure, but right now, there is just too big a gap between the top sides and the bottom sides. This would only widen with the introduction of two new sides.
As for professional half time entertainment … I don’t think there are many fans who go for the half time entertainment. Half time is for discussing the game, using the bathroom and standing in line to refresh your beer or food stocks.
Mr Greenberg, I am not one to simply pan ideas without offering an alternative.
Fans are not staying at home due to the 40 minute halves, the lack of halftime entertainment or the number of teams in the competition.
Fans are staying at home due to the simple fact it is simply too expensive to attend games in this day and age.
A general admission ticket can cost $30. A beer $9. A hot dog $7. Hot chips $6. Plus transport, parking, merchandise … It adds up quickly.
I have a family of four. A day at the football runs about the same as our weekly food budget.
Either feed the kids or attend at 80 (or 100) minute game of football?
The current product has simply priced many fans out of the game.
Season tickets are a wonderful thing, but having two small children, it’s impossible to invest $600-$800 for a family ticket as you simply never know how many games you will be able to attend.
Mr Greenberg, if you want more fans to leave the comfort of their own home and attend games, do something about the cost of attending a game.
I understand the NRL does not set ticket prices at grounds. Lean on the teams. 20,000 at $10 is better than 10,000 at $20.
Speak to food vendors. I’m fairly confident it does not cost a supplier $6 to provide a bucket of chips.
If any side can honestly tell me that they have to charge $8 for a beer to turn a profit, I can honestly reply they need new suppliers.
I know this is an elite competition and should be priced accordingly, but it all comes down to supply and demand.
Right now, the demand simply isn’t there.
Fans are happy to sit in the warmth of their own homes, where there are no lines for overpriced beverages, and watch the game.
The product is there. TV ratings are massive. People LOVE rugby league.
They don’t LOVE being charged $30 to stand on the hill or in the nosebleed seats.
It’s not all about price, but it’s more about price than it is about breaking the game into quarters.
It’s more about price than it is about watching former X Factor contestants play their latest ‘hit’ at half time.
Mr Greenberg, I applaud your passion in wanting to improve the game, but it does not need wholesale changes.
Thank you, we look forward to 2015.
Best regards,
Daniel
