Radradra Wants to Play for Australia

[B rad]

Who do you expect to do the paying?

 

 

It would be nice if the Pacific Nations could pay their own way but at the moment we know they unfortunately cant. They have no income or a very small amount. Partly because they don't play many games to make an income from. Its a vicious circle.

 

Since it is the RLIF's job to promote and spread our sport internationally, and since the pacific nations are the closet thing to competitive nations to the big 3 (they have the most NRL/Super League players behind Australia, New Zealand and England)  then surely an argument could be made that they could help out and invest in the next best.

 

The NRL has spoken of plans to target the pacific. On their page there is a whole page devoted to it.

 

http://www.nrl.com/news/news/nrlpacific/tabid/11542/default.aspx

 

They have the most money, the Pacific is a breeding ground for good rugby league players, maybe they could spread the costs between the NRL and RLIF as an investment.

 

Pacific Nations play a tough style of throw the ball around football which is very entertaining to watch. When Origin started there were many doubters that it could be success. You got to start somewhere. Watching the best Pacific players in a Tonga, Samoa, Fiji and PNG series each year could pay for its self if it was promoted well and bring an income to these nations. They just need the initial loan or boost from someone with money to find out. Would you watch it? if it was on a stand alone weekend with Origin do you think your friends would want to watch it? Mine would.

 

As mentioned this would give incentives for guys like Radradra to stick with those nations, give those nations a higher profile to attain sponsorship of their own, help grow the sport there through a bigger profile and give our international game more much needed depth. Possibly all that, for what?, paying a few players to play for nations they are eligible for and letting them play a decent amount of games a year. Not to mention a salary cap like effect it would have on international rugby league by making it more difficult for the top 2 teams in the sport to attract the best players from weaker sides. As I said making the strong stronger and the weak weaker which is the opposite of what our sport needs at international level if it is ever to expand.

[DoubleD]

Steve Mascord's take on things

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/how-australia-can-be-the-robin-hood-of-international-sport-20160225-gn35a8.html

What is it about eligibility rules that fascinates a certain section of rugby league supporters so much?

When the Sydney Morning Herald broke the story about Parramatta's Semi Radradra wanting to play for Australia, I was deluged on Twitter.

Perhaps eligibility rules are interesting because they represent how rugby league sees itself. They encapsulate the world view of officials in contrast to those of the game's supporters.

The first thing I'd like to say is that, as an individual, Semi Radradra has the right to put himself forward for any team he is properly entitled to represent.

In the new edition of Rugby League World magazine, colleague Gavin Willacy points out the Fiji Bati have played just twice since the 2013 World Cup semi-finals. Australia don't play too often either but they do pay much better - $20,000 a game.

He is not eligible for NSW because he did not live there before he was 13. From here on, the situation is very much about how the NRL and the Australian team sees themselves.

And the first problem is that they see themselves as indivisible. It's conceivable that some of the money the NRL derives from New Zealand broadcast rights is contributing to the wages of the new Australian coach, Mal Meninga.

How is this justifiable?

Brent Webb may have played for New Zealand and Rangi Chase for England but does Australia seriously need the residency rule to pick a national team?

On one hand Origin players are being banned from representing the so called "islands" but on the other "islanders" are supposedly about to be picked by Australia. It's the embodiment of having cake and eating it too.

Put another way … you cannot play Origin unless you commit to Australia but we'll let you play for Australia if you are not eligible for Origin.

Rules are rules but then there's policy and these policies on the part of Australia are abusive and about as far from statesmanlike as you can ever imagine.

Rugby league has a great opportunity to funnel talent back to developing countries at Test level and steal the march on other sports where economic migration has a decisive effect on the international balance of power. We can be the Robin Hood of international sport.

Australia should never use the residency rule to pick a player because Australia is the game's most powerful country and has an unfair economic advantage over everyone else.

Origin players should be permitted to represent other tier two countries for whom the properly qualify without changing their country of election.

Playing Origin should not tie you to Australia. Australia does not need the help of the $30,000-a-man to hoard talent.

The NRL should pay at least one $20,000 match fee per year to each player who represents another country – as they did for the Kiwis in last year's Anzac Test.

How do we have a Collective Bargaining Agreement that covers Australasians but not Fijians, Italians, Papuans and Lebanese? How is that worded?

Finally the Australian team should be run by an independent High Performance Unit and not the NRL. The NRL's role should be to fund the team but also keep it in line to protect the interests of the game worldwide, to which it has a moral responsibility as the peak club competition.

At the moment I am reminded of a 40-year-old friend a few Christmases back, bowling at 100 miles an hour at a six year old during a game of backyard cricket when I think of Australia's efforts to "make international rugby league great again".

Premier League is not there for the benefit of the England soccer team, The NBA is not there for the benefit of the US basketball team. The NRL should have the same independence given it contains players of all nationalities.

ARLC chairman John Grant should not read out the Australian team. The directors should not get around in green and gold scarves.

That's my world view. What's yours?

I hope people in the higher echelons of the NRL and ARLC read that and take note.

[JoneslessBishop]

Agreed Tex. I think only 1 SOO test is scheduled as a standalone weekend at the moment, so having a tour may be difficult. From a selfish England perspective I'd like England to play NZ in that slot, especially as Pacific Nations are scheduled to play each other. In the medium term it would be good to get Pacific and Euro nations up in strength so them playing tier 1 nations mid season is more attractive. Until then my vote is for England v NZ. Later NZ can play the top Pacific nation that weekend. There are 5 Pacific Nation after all, so other 4 could play each other. Cook Islands seem to have fallen off the radar recently, but they are always going to have the least potential

[Farmduck]

Steve Mascord's take on things

 

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/how-australia-can-be-the-robin-hood-of-international-sport-20160225-gn35a8.html

 

What is it about eligibility rules that fascinates a certain section of rugby league supporters so much?

When the Sydney Morning Herald broke the story about Parramatta's Semi Radradra wanting to play for Australia, I was deluged on Twitter.

  Perhaps eligibility rules are interesting because they represent how rugby league sees itself. They encapsulate the world view of officials in contrast to those of the game's supporters.

 

What is it about eligibility that brings out so much criticism of Australia? The rules of international eligibility are decided by the RLIF and no player who wasn't eligible under the prevailing rules at the time has ever played for the Kangaroos. If the rules are wrong why not complain about the failure of the RLIF to do anything about them? AUS has only 2 members - a minority - on the RLIF Board. Any real will for change, on behalf of the RLF, NZRL, or Pacific nations would be an automatic winner.

 

 

The first thing I'd like to say is that, as an individual, Semi Radradra has the right to put himself forward for any team he is properly entitled to represent.

In the new edition of Rugby League World magazine, colleague Gavin Willacy points out the Fiji Bati have played just twice since the 2013 World Cup semi-finals. Australia don't play too often either but they do pay much better - $20,000 a game.

He is not eligible for NSW because he did not live there before he was 13. From here on, the situation is very much about how the NRL and the Australian team sees themselves.

 

To the best of my knowledge Radradra hasn't been picked to play for OZ nor has he been approached by anyone connected with the Kangaroos. The lack of games played by Fiji is surely an issue for the Fiji RL, not the NRL. The NRL was never intended to be the governing body for RL in the Pacific. The relevant body is the Aisa Pacific RL Confederation.

 

And the first problem is that they see themselves as indivisible. It's conceivable that some of the money the NRL derives from New Zealand broadcast rights is contributing to the wages of the new Australian coach, Mal Meninga.

How is this justifiable?

 

It's equally conceivable that the NZ Coach and the current and previous England coaches derive the bulk of their incomes from the money the NRL derives from Australian TV rights.

 

Brent Webb may have played for New Zealand and Rangi Chase for England but does Australia seriously need the residency rule to pick a national team?

 

No it doesn't but it undermines your criticism of Australia when you have such obvious examples of other Tier 1 nations doing the exact same thing.

 

On one hand Origin players are being banned from representing the so called "islands" but on the other "islanders" are supposedly about to be picked by Australia. It's the embodiment of having cake and eating it too.

 

Put another way … you cannot play Origin unless you commit to Australia but we'll let you play for Australia if you are not eligible for Origin.

Rules are rules but then there's policy and these policies on the part of Australia are abusive and about as far from statesmanlike as you can ever imagine.

Rugby league has a great opportunity to funnel talent back to developing countries at Test level and steal the march on other sports where economic migration has a decisive effect on the international balance of power. We can be the Robin Hood of international sport.

Australia should never use the residency rule to pick a player because Australia is the game's most powerful country and has an unfair economic advantage over everyone else.

 

Australia should use the residence rule? What about other Tier 1 nations? So Sarginson shouldn't be playing for England and Hurrell should never play for NZ?

Origin players should be permitted to represent other tier two countries for whom the properly qualify without changing their country of election.

Playing Origin should not tie you to Australia.

 

Horse before the cart here. Being Australian is part of your qualification for playing Origin.

 

Australia does not need the help of the $30,000-a-man to hoard talent.

The NRL should pay at least one $20,000 match fee per year to each player who represents another country – as they did for the Kiwis in last year's Anzac Test.

 

Many NRL contracts include bonus payments to players who make their national teams. Why are the other governing bodies exempt from footing the bills for their own national teams? They already get cash from the RLIF to play internationals.

 

How do we have a Collective Bargaining Agreement that covers Australasians but not Fijians, Italians, Papuans and Lebanese? How is that worded?

 

Possibly because it covers an Australian domestic comp and the Australian, NSW and Queensland teams - to put it another way, it only covers those teams and comps where it has jurisdiction.

Finally the Australian team should be run by an independent High Performance Unit and not the NRL.

 

The Kangaroos are run by the ARL. The team and coaching and support staff are all apointed by and paid by the ARL.

 

The NRL's role should be to fund the team but also keep it in line to protect the interests of the game worldwide, to which it has a moral responsibility as the peak club competition.

At the moment I am reminded of a 40-year-old friend a few Christmases back, bowling at 100 miles an hour at a six year old during a game of backyard cricket when I think of Australia's efforts to "make international rugby league great again".

Premier League is not there for the benefit of the England soccer team, The NBA is not there for the benefit of the US basketball team. The NRL should have the same independence given it contains players of all nationalities.

ARLC chairman John Grant should not read out the Australian team.

 

The ARL Chairman is ultimately the boss of the Kangaroos. Why shouldn't he read out the team. The ARLC exists for the benefit of all RL in OZ. The NRL exists to run the best possible 16-team comp it can. At the end of the day, if it all goes belly up, who will be held responsible to clean up the mess and rebuild? The Tonga RL? The RLEF? No, the NRL and ARLC have the authority because they also carry the responsibility.

 

The directors should not get around in green and gold scarves.

 

The directors of the ARLC are all Australian. What country should they support?

 

That's my world view. What's yours?

[deluded pom?]

I've always berated England and New Zealand for selecting players who have already played for another nation ducky. As regards the voting on the RLIF board, Australians may well be in the minority but the Kiwis know which side their bread is buttered and will vote accordingly.

[hutch]

The NRL has spoken of plans to target the pacific. On their page there is a whole page devoted to it.

http://www.nrl.com/news/news/nrlpacific/tabid/11542/default.aspx

They have the most money, the Pacific is a breeding ground for good rugby league players, maybe they could spread the costs between the NRL and RLIF as an investment.

Pacific Nations play a tough style of throw the ball around football which is very entertaining to watch. When Origin started there were many doubters that it could be success. You got to start somewhere. Watching the best Pacific players in a Tonga, Samoa, Fiji and PNG series each year could pay for its self if it was promoted well and bring an income to these nations. They just need the initial loan or boost from someone with money to find out. Would you watch it? if it was on a stand alone weekend with Origin do you think your friends would want to watch it? Mine would.

As mentioned this would give incentives for guys like Radradra to stick with those nations, give those nations a higher profile to attain sponsorship of their own, help grow the sport there through a bigger profile and give our international game more much needed depth. Possibly all that, for what?, paying a few players to play for nations they are eligible for and letting them play a decent amount of games a year. Not to mention a salary cap like effect it would have on international rugby league by making it more difficult for the top 2 teams in the sport to attract the best players from weaker sides. As I said making the strong stronger and the weak weaker which is the opposite of what our sport needs at international level if it is ever to expand.

I'll believe it when I see it. There has still never been a rugby league junior from Tonga or Samoa play in the NRL and you can count the amount of rugby league juniors from Fiji to have played NRL on one hand. We have never tried to develop the pacific, all the good work has been done by committed locals with a passion for the game. Rugby league has grown immensely in Fiji since the 2008 rlwc but sadly the NRL hasn't done much to help.