It’s Ottawa in 2020 says Eric Perez

[Omott91]

3 hours ago, Kayakman said:

Thats because everyone is too cheapo to tip.  People need to be able to live somehow.

That's because our country can afford to pay our lowest income earners a proper wage without having to scalp or pressure their customers for money. The whole tipping thing is ridiculous.

[Copa]

5 hours ago, Omott91 said:

I just spent 2 weeks in the US and if you are anything like them you are a long long way behind us Aussies in regards to standard of living.

Having been to both the US and Canada, I’d much prefer to live in Canada. Both countries are full of very generous and friendly people though.

Canada also has the Wolfpack. That in itself puts it ahead!

[Tommygilf]

5 hours ago, ojx said:

This thread has gone so off topic it is insane.  My country is better than yours etc.

I heard the actually meeting about Ottawa & NY, where they make their presentations, is in mid April. Can anyone confirm this?

Thats what Perez said on either the 5 Live or Total RL podcast last week. 

[Big Picture]

8 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Thats what Perez said on either the 5 Live or Total RL podcast last week. 

It was on the Total RL podcast which you can listen to here: http://www.totalrl.com/podcast-the-total-rugby-league-show-ep-9/.  The Pérez interview starts at the 24:45 mark.

[PatrickB]

6 hours ago, Big Picture said:

It was on the Total RL podcast which you can listen to here: http://www.totalrl.com/podcast-the-total-rugby-league-show-ep-9/.  The Pérez interview starts at the 24:45 mark.

Thanks for bring the interview to our attention.
Really interesting interview, and lot's of support there from the hosts.
Can't wait to find if this gets approved by the league.

[dealwithit]

On 4/2/2019 at 6:28 AM, Smudger06 said:

We need to study purchasing power parity (PPP) within GDP per capita in all honesty folks. 

To compare cost of living, yes. 

To compare a countries based on economic might, gdp will do. 

Gdp per capita aint what you’re looking for.

[North but south]

4 hours ago, dealwithit said:

To compare cost of living, yes. 

To compare a countries based on economic might, gdp will do. 

Gdp per capita aint what you’re looking for.

The most important factor is which has the most dangerous animals. Not that it's got anything to do with rugby league but it's nice to know when planning my next holiday.

[Copa]

4 hours ago, North but south said:

The most important factor is which has the most dangerous animals. 

The winner is Australia.

The world's second most venomous land snake lives in my suburb! And yes, I’ve seen them around.

[The Great Dane]

8 hours ago, Copa said:

The winner is Australia.

The world's second most venomous land snake lives in my suburb! And yes, I’ve seen them around.

Pfft, brown snake, mate Canada has bloody grizzly bears! If we're going to win we need to bring out the big guns! 

May I suggest the real thing made of nightmares that is lurking around in the bush?!

Cassowaries my friends, giant birds with mohawks, bright blue skin, and a bright red scrotum hanging from their chin. while you are laughing at their appearance they'll screw you up ten different ways before you even realise that this ridiculous thing has just eviscerated you where you stand.

Even grizzlies would be terrified of cassowaries, and if they weren't scared they'd soon regret it... 

[Michael1812]

On 3/31/2019 at 9:05 PM, Kayakman said:

Either that or some people are clearly obtuse and don't even  know their basic geography.....I know where I am placing my bet.

Wouldn’t surprise me. One thing I’ve been amazed by since moving to the U.K. is how many people think Mexico is in South America. 

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, Michael1812 said:

Wouldn’t surprise me. One thing I’ve been amazed by since moving to the U.K. is how many people think Mexico is in South America. 

We know where it is , it's just where the line is drawn , so where does the north end ? , The south start ? , And which ones are ' central ' ?

[Michael1812]

 

On 4/2/2019 at 12:25 AM, Omott91 said:

I just spent 2 weeks in the US and if you are anything like them you are a long long way behind us Aussies in regards to standard of living.

This post is hilarious. 

[Michael1812]

23 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

We know where it is , it's just where the line is drawn , so where does the north end ? , The south start ? , And which ones are ' central ' ?

So looking at a map of the world, you get confused by where the continent is split between the north and south? Doesn’t look that difficult to me.  

 

 

[Dr Tim Whatley]

This thread is drunk.

[Kayakman]

18 hours ago, North but south said:

The most important factor is which has the most dangerous animals. Not that it's got anything to do with rugby league but it's nice to know when planning my next holiday.

The most dangerous animal is the middle aged female Canadian Cougar...usually divorced from her original mate she prowls bars and chat rooms looking for an unsuspecting younger male....grocery stores and retail outlets are kept under constant watch for a single unattached male...when she pounces on a potential male mate she can be lethal and ALL smothering.

[fighting irish]

That sounds as if you've been bitten by one Kay'man. More than once, perhaps?

[The Great Dane]

6 hours ago, Michael1812 said:

So looking at a map of the world, you get confused by where the continent is split between the north and south? Doesn’t look that difficult to me.

Well actually he has a fair point.

There's no scientific way to divide the continents and it's done largely by convention with not only the tectonic plates coming into account, but historical convention, and perceived cultural divides as well. So these days what is defined as a continent could be interpreted as pretty arbitrary, because realistically it is pretty arbitrary.

For example if you look at Europe and Asia there isn't any actual physical divide between the two continents as they are both on the Eurasian plate, but for cultural and historical reasons both are defined as separate continents.

In the case of what are defined as the North American and South America continents it's fair to say that where they are spilt into the North and South continent is totally arbitrary, as though Mexico (and parts of Guatemala and Belize) are on the North American plate the rest of Central America are on the Caribbean plate and not the South American plate. It could also fairly reasonably be argued that there is a cultural divide similar to the one that defines the separation between Europe and Asia that roughly starts on the border between Mexico and the USA.

I don't have a dog in the fight, and honestly don't really care, but his argument isn't as ridiculous as you are making out.

[Big Picture]

5 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

Well actually he has a fair point.

There's no scientific way to divide the continents and it's done largely by convention with not only the tectonic plates coming into account, but historical convention, and perceived cultural divides as well. So these days what is defined as a continent could be interpreted as pretty arbitrary, because realistically it is pretty arbitrary.

For example if you look at Europe and Asia there isn't any actual physical divide between the two continents as they are both on the Eurasian plate, but for cultural and historical reasons both are defined as separate continents.

In the case of what are defined as the North American and South America continents it's fair to say that where they are spilt into the North and South continent is totally arbitrary, as though Mexico (and parts of Guatemala and Belize) are on the North American plate the rest of Central America are on the Caribbean plate and not the South American plate. It could also fairly reasonably be argued that there is a cultural divide similar to the one that defines the separation between Europe and Asia that roughly starts on the border between Mexico and the USA.

I don't have a dog in the fight, and honestly don't really care, but his argument isn't as ridiculous as you are making out.

Very true.  To give just one example, as far as I can determine the idea that there are two continents in America rather than just one is a revisionist idea which is only 225-250 years old.  Five different models of the continents are taught around the world, and three of those teach that the western hemisphere has just one continent, the continent of America.

[Woodyhkr]

5 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

Well actually he has a fair point.

There's no scientific way to divide the continents and it's done largely by convention with not only the tectonic plates coming into account, but historical convention, and perceived cultural divides as well. So these days what is defined as a continent could be interpreted as pretty arbitrary, because realistically it is pretty arbitrary.

For example if you look at Europe and Asia there isn't any actual physical divide between the two continents as they are both on the Eurasian plate, but for cultural and historical reasons both are defined as separate continents.

In the case of what are defined as the North American and South America continents it's fair to say that where they are spilt into the North and South continent is totally arbitrary, as though Mexico (and parts of Guatemala and Belize) are on the North American plate the rest of Central America are on the Caribbean plate and not the South American plate. It could also fairly reasonably be argued that there is a cultural divide similar to the one that defines the separation between Europe and Asia that roughly starts on the border between Mexico and the USA.

I don't have a dog in the fight, and honestly don't really care, but his argument isn't as ridiculous as you are making out.

They were 2 separate land masses until around 3 million years ago. I don't think arbitrary means what you think it means.

[RLX111]

14 minutes ago, Woodyhkr said:

They were 2 separate land masses until around 3 million years ago. I don't think arbitrary means what you think it means.

As a geography teacher many years ago I think the Yucatan region was a fair place to divide the north from south if I remember correctly-if it ever really mattered!!!

[Kayakman]

7 hours ago, fighting irish said:

That sounds as if you've been bitten by one Kay'man. More than once, perhaps?

They can't help themselves when they lay their eyes on this chunk of man....they seem to lose all of their senses as they literally throw themselves at me.  Its sort of sad.

[The Parksider]

On 4/1/2019 at 10:35 AM, Adelaide Tiger said:

Well I said that I would respond to your ‘thoughts on how to grow the game’.

You speak of ‘halting the decline’ first and your solution appears to increase SL to 14 English teams.  How does that-

a. Arrest the decline -  How will a 14 team league of English teams be more attractive to tv companies for the next tv deal? What will be the USP to increase investment from tv companies?

B. Increase the tv money for each club -  There is always the possibility that there is no improvement to the next SKY deal.  If that occurs then the pot is split 14 ways thereby decreasing the amount each current SL team receives.  Could the teams cope with this possibility?

C. Grow the game  - you have not outlined how you would expect such a format to grow the game.

D. Time frame - With an English only SL what would you consider is an appropriate time frame for the game to grow to a point whereby you would consider that the game is in a very strong position? 

E. The comment about Hector McNeil is interesting and I would dearly wish for a strong London.  But, after 6 years since McNeil set out his Plan is there any indication as to how close he is to achieving it.  Just because he has a Plan does not mean it is Gospel.

F. Do you believe that by having an exclusive English SL it would increase the chance of McNeil attracting wealthy investors rather than investors being interested because of a Northern Hemisphere element?

I look forward to your reply.

A. Because the subscribing audience is English. Therefore the big 14 English clubs and their fans are provided with the entertainment they want. This would maximise revenue to SKY and maximise the contract for English clubs to share.

B. If the SKY TV deal was lower we may only be able to put 10 English clubs in SL. That would be detrimental as a lot of English fans who would not have a team in SL and on TV.

C. I have never talked about "Growing the game" merely halting the decline and making the most of the English game.

D. Eh??   I'm talking about halting the decline of the game.

E. I didn't say it was gospel, all I am saying is his plan aims to include London as a successful SL club to take away the regional nature of SL in England. 

F. McNeil has already attracted David Argylle to invest in London Skolars. He has his massive investor FFS.

Why do you think that throwing half of an English SL aside, depriving half the TV audience here of watching their clubs, and cutting SKY TV subs by half is any sort of a viable plan? Why do you think SKY want to show foreign clubs? Why do you think English clubs abandoned by SKY will continue to bother with Rugby League?

Your from Australia, why not advocate half the NRL clubs being replaced by Phoney Baloney clubs from elsewhere and tell me how well that will go down with Australians.

OVER TO YOU

[TIWIT]

1 hour ago, The Parksider said:

C. I have never talked about "Growing the game" merely halting the decline and making the most of the English game.

D. Eh??   I'm talking about halting the decline of the game. 

Simple question: you admit the game is already in decline. How is continuing what's being done now going to halt this decline?

[Copa]

It’s think we should move the discussion to poutine vs chips and gravy to really open the battle between Canada and the UK.

Perhaps the UK can throw in some chips and curry sauce also.

Australia with its own chips and gravy and the uber special “minimum hot chips with chicken salt please” and “wedges with sour cream and sweet chilli sauce thanks mate” can observe from the sidelines.

[Kayakman]

17 minutes ago, Copa said:

It’s think we should move the discussion to poutine vs chips and gravy to really open the battle between Canada and the UK.

Perhaps the UK can throw in some chips and curry sauce also.

Australia with its own chips and gravy and the uber special “minimum hot chips with chicken salt please” and “wedges with sour cream and sweet chilli sauce thanks mate” can observe from the sidelines.

What passes for a hot dog in Gr. Britain or Australia would not make it over here...never!...not even close!....those bangers are brutal!

I would not even feed those to my dog....I mean that.