How embarrassing for rugby league that NRL clubs can stop England and New Zealand playing in Denver?

[Scubby]

12 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

Pfft, they trot that ###### out every couple of years.

A couple of seasons ago the Panthers and Broncos were going to play in Hawaii.

I'll believe it when I see it.

You've got to admit this rhetoric smacks of hypocrisy when there is actually a lot of money on the table for England and NZ to play in the USA on a bye weekend for the NRL?

[The Great Dane]

27 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

I just find that statement baffling. What's the idea then? To have leagues all over the world that rarely play internationals? A bit like we have now?

Nope not even that, more like a grand system of funneling all the best talent from around the world into the NRL, from the NRL clubs point of view that's a beneficial situation, so we have to change that situation by making internationals more attractive to them then that system.

[jpmc]

3 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

Define very popular? Seeing as how it's only broadcast on a minority TV channel? I think Dave T quoted 30,000. 

Social media goes a bit daft when its on

[The Great Dane]

25 minutes ago, Mattrhino said:

Super League plus the Challenge Cup probably attracts 10+ million TV viewers and approx 1.5 million spectators and a yearly deal of the equivalent of 35 mill AUD so the numbers pretty much beats the 3 match series.

Its a bloody great event but it is not the pinnacle of the game by any strech of the imagination. Does the viewership outside of Aus and NZ even reach 6 figures? 

That's nice, now lets take an equal sample size instead of comparing two competitions with well over 100 games to a 3 game series and get a real comparison of comparative popularity and value.

So three games from the Super League and Challenge Cup, and they'd have to be average crowds to get a true comparison but I'll let you get away with crowds and ratings from three finals and/or big games if you want, or you could size up SOO to match the SL and CC if you want, and then compare the stats of the two. I'd do it for you myself but I'm busy 

Taking an equal sample size SOO is pulling in much, much more then the SL and Challenge Cup or any other RL events in the world, i think we both know that if we're both being realistic. 

It'd also be interesting to compare percentage of population viewing the sport in both countries as well, but again I don't have time and compiling the stats necessary to do the sums would take ages.

[The Great Dane]

37 minutes ago, Scubby said:

In 2017 State of Origin was watched by under 30k on an obscure sports satellite channel in the UK. The second biggest RL market in the World. 

More people watched two amateur teams in the first round of the Challenge Cup streamed on the BBC sports site this year.

And?

CC final and SL final were probably viewed by similar numbers or even less in Australia and Qcup NSWcup games probably get higher ratings, especially if we are only considering the live broadcast and not replays as well, I imagine that the NRL grand final pulls similar numbers in the UK. 

Whats your point? 

That number alone doesn't change the fact that SOO is drawing more, if you take the numbers just from Australia and PNG alone it's probably the biggest RL event in the world, if that's not enough just add NZ and the rest of the PIs.

[Scubby]

1 minute ago, The Great Dane said:

And?

CC final and SL final were probably viewed by similar numbers or even less in Australia and Qcup NSWcup games probably get higher ratings, especially if we are only considering the live broadcast and not replays as well, I imagine that the NRL grand final pulls similar numbers in the UK. 

Whats your point? 

That number alone doesn't change the fact that SOO is drawing more, if you take the numbers just from Australia and PNG alone it's probably the biggest RL event in the world, if that's not enough just add NZ and the rest of the PIs.

My point is that you are talking about a tiny catchment here (circa 37 million) and absolutely no potential to expand that. It is about as relevant in the World as AFL.

[The Great Dane]

40 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Yes, that is a relatively succinct explanation of the small time, parochial, short-sighted behaviour of the NRL.

No it is a succinct explanation of how the governing bodies of RL don't have a clue how to successfully run an international sports business, and of how you lot are angry at the wrong people, you're trying to shame the symptoms into going away instead of trying to cure the cause of the sickness.

And if roles were reversed and the English clubs were in the NRL clubs shoes and vice versa we'd be in the exact same boat except it's be the English clubs being reluctant and the NRL clubs that'd be keen, and if things keep going the way they are going the roles will be reversed if/when the sport takes off a bit in North America.

[The Great Dane]

31 minutes ago, Scubby said:

You've got to admit this rhetoric smacks of hypocrisy when there is actually a lot of money on the table for England and NZ to play in the USA on a bye weekend for the NRL?

Nah, it's not hypocritical at all.

The clubs are never going to be interested in supporting the RFL and NZRL at their expense, they're always going to be interested in business opportunities and headlines for themselves.

They're acting completely consistently to how they always have and how I'd expect them to act under the circumstances, nothing hypocritical about it at all.

If they were to release players for two other nations to play in America while doing what they are doing to England and NZ that'd be hypocritical.

Just now, Scubby said:

My point is that you are talking about a tiny catchment here (circa 37 million) and absolutely no potential to expand that. It is about as relevant in the World as AFL.

So?

We weren't talking about potential growth, we were talking about current statistics and facts.

Is their more potential growth in internationals than in SOO worldwide? Of course there is.

But as it stands now SOO is currently bigger then any other form of RL. 

[Scubby]

Just now, The Great Dane said:

We weren't talking about potential growth, we were talking about current statistics and facts.

Is their more potential growth in internationals than in SOO worldwide? Of course there is.

But as it stands now SOO is currently bigger then any other form of RL. 

And it is appears to be doing everything within its power to stay that way.

[nadera78]

38 minutes ago, jpmc said:

regardless of whats being said on here SOO is very popular over here as well

Really? I'd consider myself a pretty hardcore RL fan, and I haven't watched a single game of Origin in years. Not interested in it.

[Coffs]

1 hour ago, bobbruce said:

How can it be when the two teams involved combine to produce the Kangaroos. 

Because Australia v Australia is better quality than Australia v England or NZ.

[Coffs]

11 minutes ago, nadera78 said:

Really? I'd consider myself a pretty hardcore RL fan, and I haven't watched a single game of Origin in years. Not interested in it.

With that kind of proof what more can be said.

[nadera78]

1 minute ago, Coffs said:

With that kind of proof what more can be said.

Great, another Aussie telling us what's what. Exactly what this forum needs.

[Dave T]

Despite what The Great Dane says, the NRL does support the international game. Maybe not as much as some of us would like but they clearly dont agree with his view.

[Big Picture]

3 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

So I'll be more specific, what's in it for the clubs in releasing their players for more internationals that they aren't going to see any money from? Cause as things stand from their point of view they don't get anything out of it, and as long as it stays that way they are going to oppose internationals every time they get the opportunity.

There doesn't have to be anything in it for them, RLIF rules say that they must release players for full Internationals, simple as that.

[Big Picture]

3 hours ago, westside said:

As an American I enjoy NRL, SL and most of all international RL. SOO has no appeal for me.

Ditto for me, international RL is far more appealing than any other RL.

[deluded pom?]

2 hours ago, Coffs said:

Because Australia v Australia is better quality than Australia v England or NZ.

Nether of them are Australia. Strange how the cream of the best RL in the world couldn't win the WC in 2008 and a couple of 4Ns either. They also struggled to beat those mugs from England earlier this month.

[DoubleD]

4 hours ago, Coffs said:

Sorry but that is nonsense.

Are you still here?

[DoubleD]

On 15/12/2017 at 6:05 PM, The Great Dane said:

To any reasonable person it should have been clear within the context of the conversation what was being said, and if it wasn't it's cause they were filling the gaps with what they wanted/expected to hear instead of what was actually being said.

Nope the first person to bring up culture that I was talking to was Tommygilf, I didn't give an opinion on what caused the problems with the Samoan team and their players fitness until the post you just quoted, and as you can see I don't think it was cultural problem.

Your quote was:

On 15/12/2017 at 3:38 PM, The Great Dane said:

No it seems to be a problem with Samoa as all their players came back incredibly unfit (to varying degrees), the whole squad looks like they've been served Maccas for every meal and gave up on strength and conditioning, maybe it is a cultural problem but it's Samoas cultural problem not the Raiders, if it was a cultural problem at the Raiders it wouldn't just be these three players that played for Samoa that would be so unfit and it also wouldn't explain why most of the rest of the Samoan squad is in the same boat.

 

On 15/12/2017 at 6:05 PM, The Great Dane said:

The Raiders started preseason on the 31st of October with all available players (players who weren't available on that first day slowly filter in from that date), on that first day if the players pass a fitness test they get bonus time off, if not they have to come in and continue fitness training instead of taking that time off, however sometimes some players decide to come into training even if they do pass the test.

https://www.sportsnews.com.au/nrl/knights-and-raiders-begin-18-preparation/409582  

https://twitter.com/RaidersCanberra/status/925583044056006657

The world cup players got some time off after their world cup campaign was over, but it wasn't that much, I think that the only one who still isn't back or at least only came back to training recently is Whitehead but he was in the final and all (though I'm sure quite a few of the others aren't back to full training yet either though), the others (that are healthy) did their first days of preseason a little while ago now, though I can't find the articles on it at this moment.

Also the minimum time off doesn't have to be done in one block, most clubs have time off after the end of the season, come back to training for a month or two, then take more time off over Christmas and New Years, and even then many clubs (if not all) still have minimum physical requirements of their players and often monitory their food over their time off. Also the time off isn't mandatory, if a player decides they don't want to use all of that leave and want to go back to training nobody is going to stop them, it's just the minimum time period that the clubs have to give the players off if they want it, it's not mandatory that they take it off and the clubs can give them more time off then the minimum if they want. 

So, answer the question then, did the Samoan's have time off after their WC campaign before coming back in? We both know the answer.

If players come back unfit from the off-season, should the ire be directed towards the players first and foremost, given they are grown adults and professionals who know the rights and wrongs? We both know the answer.

The only valid point you have made to date, in amongst the many changes of argument you have made, is that clubs should be properly compensated for players playing in other tournaments. I would be interested to know what SOO pay the clubs? And also what insurance policies are in place

[The Great Dane]

11 hours ago, Dave T said:

Despite what The Great Dane says, the NRL does support the international game. Maybe not as much as some of us would like but they clearly dont agree with his view.

I never said that the NRL didn't support international RL, in fact they've probably sunk more into international development then any other group...

I've only said that the NRL clubs will only support internationals if the internationals don't effect their business in any way or if there's something tangible in it for them.

[The Great Dane]

11 hours ago, Big Picture said:

There doesn't have to be anything in it for them, RLIF rules say that they must release players for full Internationals, simple as that.

Even if that is the case it doesn't mean a thing, cause if you don't have the power to enforce your laws then they aren't worth the paper they are written on and the RLIF doesn't have the power to enforce those laws on the NRL or RFL even if they wanted too.

[B rad]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/kevin-sinfield-keen-confirm-denver-11704994

I think its going to happen anyway. I saw Bennett talking about it in an earlier article that I cant find again for some reason. Seems they might push through no matter what. 

[The Great Dane]

10 hours ago, DoubleD said:

Your quote was:

You really are very disingenuous aren't you...

Even within post that you have taken that quote from it is obvious that I was responding to somebody else's suggestion that it is a cultural problem...

And I didn't even say definitively that it is a cultural problem, I say that maybe it is a cultural problem in response to their suggestion, which it could be, but I don't think that it is.

10 hours ago, DoubleD said:

So, answer the question then, did the Samoan's have time off after their WC campaign before coming back in? We both know the answer.

If players come back unfit from the off-season, should the ire be directed towards the players first and foremost, given they are grown adults and professionals who know the rights and wrongs? We both know the answer.

Yes they had some time off after their WC campaign, but they didn't gain that weight in that time off.

They were monitored in their time off, they came back from the Samoan camp with that weight...

Hell you could see them gaining it during the the wc, and it's not only the Raiders players that gained weight and lost extreme amounts of fitness during the Samoan camp and it's not only the Raiders that are angry about it, the Raiders have just been the noisiest about it, probably because it effected them the most.

10 hours ago, DoubleD said:

The only valid point you have made to date, in amongst the many changes of argument you have made, is that clubs should be properly compensated for players playing in other tournaments.

Yeah cause nations having a duty of care to the  players they loan from clubs, NRL clubs having a right to be concerned about the way that their players are treated when they're away at camp, and international RL as it is organised not being in the interests of the clubs are all terrible points .

10 hours ago, DoubleD said:

I would be interested to know what SOO pay the clubs? And also what insurance policies are in place

SOO pays for an enormous chunk of their grants and thus their total income...

And their aren't any insurance policies in place for the clubs, there should be, but there doesn't need to be cause they are directly benefiting with funds from SOO so they don't really care as long as the checks keep coming in.

[deluded pom?]

Do all clubs get a SoO pay cheque or just the ones that have players involved? 

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

I never said that the NRL didn't support international RL, in fact they've probably sunk more into international development then any other group...

I've only said that the NRL clubs will only support internationals if the internationals don't effect their business in any way or if there's something tangible in it for them.

But as we saw with the World Cup it does affect them. There is a risk of injuries, they play more games and they return to pre-season later than other players.

They still support that against your criteria. And so they should. They just make it the bare minimum to look reasonable.