Spiro is trying to remain relevant. Something he hasn't been since 1982. He spews the same anti ARU rhetoric every monday so he can have his ego stroked by his 3 or 4 followers. He is the print version of the Papworth radio show.
Printable View
Spiro is trying to remain relevant. Something he hasn't been since 1982. He spews the same anti ARU rhetoric every monday so he can have his ego stroked by his 3 or 4 followers. He is the print version of the Papworth radio show.
Spiro still thinks he's writing for a local newspaper and targets his audience appropriately.
He has yet to understand that people outside of NSW read his little online blog.
In fact this is the major issue with most people with a NSW bias. They fail to see that rugby exists outside of NSW.
It's like reading their comments about 'tribalism' in the NRC or the lack there of. They don't see that this is only of concern to NSW based teams. Everyone else outside of NSW are already actively following their NRC teams.
It's the same with 'groundroots' being the same as the Shute Shield. Small minds who can't understand that Australia continues to exist beyond the boarders of NSW without it's permission.
How on earth do they think the ARU is going to compete with Legaue, AFL AND the public school system in W Sydney when it can't even make rugby a major success in its own blue-blooded back yard?! The AFL has poured millions into W Sydney; where is the ARU going to get that sort of money from?
Another poorly thought through piece of writing.
Italy beat South Africa therefore the Western Force should become the Western Sydney Force?
Makes sense...
Between SBS and Bein sport less than 170,000 watched the Wallabies v France on television from the comfort of their homes, how many would go out and actually watch two Sydney franchises every weekend live?
As if Waratah fans would go and watch a non-Waratah match, FFS - they barely go watch Waratah matches
And logistically Super Rugby is not just home and away consecutive weeks. To have a team play in Sydney each weekend would near be impossible.
Given that the scheduling seems to favour
1 South Africa
2 New Zealand
3 Eastern Australia
4 Argentina, Japan, the black dog down the road
5 The Force
I would suggest the only time that consecutive weekly games would be played in Sydney would be when it is disadvantageous to both teams
I think it far more likely that they would both be playing the same night, because it suits the Kiwis better somehow!
With four East Coast teams, you get (on average) 2 homes games in the East Coast each weekend. As everyone seems to want to play at the same time*, that pretty much forces them to play one match Friday evening and one Saturday. Funnily enough, this is what TV wants, too.
Having five East Coast teams would mean 3 home games every other week. You can't play the extra game early, as that's a NZ game timeslot, so every other week one team would have a late Saturday kick-off and there'd be howls of complaints from the fans that they can't take the kiddies to a game starting at 8 pm; this means the teams which have the late game would complain about the affect the timing has on their attendance, especially if one team got more late games than early games**.
That's why the Force's location makes sense from a TV viewpoint, and from a rugby attendance viewpoint, quite apart from the fact that we've got the 3rd highest local player numbers.
[* Ignoring Qld's lack of summer time for half the season!]
[** It's as if they haven't thought through the logistics before knee-jerkingly claiming that the Force should be moved. :)]
Spiro has never let facts interfere with any of his opinions, why should he start now?