• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

87 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wellington N.Z.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,895 profile views
  1. A Pacific Island 4 Nations?

    Why would the Aussie media take more interest after the World cup?
  2. This thread is another exampls of the mentality expressed by many in Rugby League where there is some sort of magic get rich quick scheme that the Sport can follow to become more popular. Unfortunately there isn't going to be and development in New areas will take time and money. Given that is in short supply the game needs to be clever where it directs its efforts. Samoa has little appeal long term for the Sport. If you wanted to encourage greater Pasifika representation you would be better served targettinng the communities in NZ and Aussie.
  3. It is not really a free trade agreement that led to the immigration of large number of Pasifika people to Oz.
  4. Why would the NRL waste precious resources trying to destroy Rugby Union in an area where commercial returns are likely to be limited for the foreseeable future?
  5. A Pacific Island 4 Nations?

    Ummm... two questions. How could you tie Rugby League in Fiji in with the tourism industry? Why hasn't any other sport done this before if it makes sense? Remember Fiji is nuts over Rugby Union 7's.
  6. A Pacific Island 4 Nations?

    France has the potential to be a good earner. I'm not sure they are currently. They would be a good candidate for spending money on setting up a regular international competition. Ditto countries like Lebanon and maybe Serbia and USA. A case could be made to include PNG. However none of the other Pacific Island nations will be anything but a drain on preciouse development funds with little real potential for commercial growth long term.
  7. A Pacific Island 4 Nations?

    International Rugby League is not a cash earner outside Australia versus England and possibly New Zealand at the moment. Any regular games involving lesser teams has to be funded out of international development funds. Therefore before people start calling for more games either with or between developing nations ask yourself what areas of the World would Rugby League benefit more from long term. The Pacific islands aren't a location that adds much in way of commercial opportunities in my mind.
  8. A Pacific Island 4 Nations?

    What does the RLIF want in relation to the development of the game? There are very limited resources and funding Pacific Island competition may not be wise use of scarce money. Make no doubt about it that this competition will have to be subsidised as well. Look at the equivalent competition in Rugby Union (The Pacific Nations cup). This gets funding out of a 50 million commitment by the Rugby Union world authority over three years (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Rugby_Pacific_Nations_Cup). This is not possible for Rugby League at this time.
  9. There has to be a reason for heritage or residency players beyond making up more teams. In Rugby League's case this must be to develop a domestic competition within the the country within a timeframe (preferably by the time of the next world cup). Lebanon is a good example of how this could work. Anything less will be regarded as cheapening the international game.
  10. Toronto Wolfpack's next priority

    Look at how the clubs in London and Melbourne approached/approaches this and learn lessons on what works and what doesn't. How successful have youth development been in these two locations and if it hasn't been as successful as hoped for what could be done differently?
  11. The purpose of the World cup is not just to determine which international team can lay claim to be the best in the World. It is to enable the sport to expand and develop. It does this in multiple ways such as providing funds for the RLIF and attracting new fans via watching the game. Hosting the event itself encourages growth if done in the correct manner. If the RLIF are serious about spreading the game (and many have doubts about that) then they need to take a more hands on approach to using the World cup to achieve that goal. France should be the next aim for strengthening the sport unless you can think of another country with an existing set up and infrastructure that would benefit.
  12. The question is why isn't the RLIF looking to work with the French federation to get them in a position to bid. Rugby League is quite infuriating in that the efforts at the higher level seem to be driven more by the precepts of chaos theory than some sort of concerted campaign to develop the sport.
  13. Why is no one arguing for France to host the next World cup. They have a team in Super League and an established domestic competition as well as a good supporter base which the US and Canada do not have at this stage. If the sport wishes to expand via using the World cup to boost interest it would make more sense to start with France and then see how it goes before leaping in to somewhere like the Us and Canada.
  14. II'm always a little unsure about how Rugby League's International body funds the development of the game around the world. I know it relies on funding from the profits from the World cup but has this been publicised since the last event?