fishermanaxe
Grey Nurse
No I doubt I’ll get flamed for starting a new thread on this- but doesn’t this topic deserve it?
I know this has been discussed under the “Development update “ thread but this is different.
There’s just something so fishy about the whole process and it has my spidey senses going. The refurb of the leagues club is supposed to take 2 years! What exactly about the refurb will take that long ? The Cowboys can build a completely new ground in less time.
There is no promise of a ground refurb - just a few lines about being able to spend a few $ on it with the money we save from not operating the ground for 2 years . What does this mean exactly?
Im worried there is something far more sinister behind the idea of not playing at home for 2 years.
Could this be a pre-cursor allow relocation with minimal public outcry ?
Imagine this , after 18 months or so talks starts again about the Sharks relocating after a dramatic drop in membership numbers, crowd attendances, revenue etc ( all perfectly understandable having no home ground )
NRL then say to the club “ you are not hitting your expected KPI’s and relocation is on our agenda” .... followed by “ you are in serious jeopardy of being closed down , but have we got a deal for you!!! “ . With no tangible evidence of our prospects of survivability, back room discussions ensue, and a heavily influenced ( by the NRL ) but publicy joint decision is made that relocation is our only option! A number of preferential options are offered to existing members to try and sweeten the deal.... but the ball is already in motion.... need I I go on?
I know this has been discussed under the “Development update “ thread but this is different.
There’s just something so fishy about the whole process and it has my spidey senses going. The refurb of the leagues club is supposed to take 2 years! What exactly about the refurb will take that long ? The Cowboys can build a completely new ground in less time.
There is no promise of a ground refurb - just a few lines about being able to spend a few $ on it with the money we save from not operating the ground for 2 years . What does this mean exactly?
Im worried there is something far more sinister behind the idea of not playing at home for 2 years.
Could this be a pre-cursor allow relocation with minimal public outcry ?
Imagine this , after 18 months or so talks starts again about the Sharks relocating after a dramatic drop in membership numbers, crowd attendances, revenue etc ( all perfectly understandable having no home ground )
NRL then say to the club “ you are not hitting your expected KPI’s and relocation is on our agenda” .... followed by “ you are in serious jeopardy of being closed down , but have we got a deal for you!!! “ . With no tangible evidence of our prospects of survivability, back room discussions ensue, and a heavily influenced ( by the NRL ) but publicy joint decision is made that relocation is our only option! A number of preferential options are offered to existing members to try and sweeten the deal.... but the ball is already in motion.... need I I go on?