Jump to content

Recommended Posts


Posted
1 minute ago, Damien said:

Cool.

Is Grant a Tory? wouldn't be surprised to be honest. The traits are definitely there.

If that’s the best you have left Damien, then I definitely preferred it when you said you were lost for words.

  • Like 2
Posted

Instead of shuddering to think where we'd be without the NRL, I tend to think where we'd be if we had a genuinely supportive cash-rich partner who wanted to deliver genuine growth internationally instead of one that takes a year off every few years, one that changes their mind frequently (Ashes in 2019 and 2024), cancels successful events, sabotages Tests between other nations and even cancels whole World Cups.

With friends like these....

 

  • Like 7
  • Haha 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

If that’s the best you have left Damien, then I definitely preferred it when you said you were lost for words.

Your reply is that laughable there isn't anything worth correcting. Anyone can see that.

Posted
8 minutes ago, Damien said:

Your reply is that laughable there isn't anything worth correcting. Anyone can see that.

As expected, all you had were unsubstantiated accusations. When those accusations were challenged, you’ve got nothing.

That term “gaslighting” is rubbing off on you more than you know.

Posted
20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Instead of shuddering to think where we'd be without the NRL, I tend to think where we'd be if we had a genuinely supportive cash-rich partner who wanted to deliver genuine growth internationally instead of one that takes a year off every few years, one that changes their mind frequently (Ashes in 2019 and 2024), cancels successful events, sabotages Tests between other nations and even cancels whole World Cups.

With friends like these....

 

13 men’s and women’s teams from 7 nations participating in 18 matches almost exclusively organised and financed by the NRL.

Outside a WC, when has the Pacific ever seen such a widespread footprint of representation than it has this year?

Nah, NRL don’t invest in international footy.

Friends like these indeed Dave.

 

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

As expected, all you had were unsubstantiated accusations. When those accusations were challenged, you’ve got nothing.

That term “gaslighting” is rubbing off on you more than you know.

If you say so. I'm not sure giving us all a good laugh is a challenge but whatever floats your boat.

Look I've made my case, you've made yours, and I am not wasting time responding to lies and revisionism.

It's clear I'm not going to change your mind and what you've said certainly isn't going to change mine. As I said previously I'm more than happy for others to decide.

Edited by Damien
Posted
48 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

13 men’s and women’s teams from 7 nations participating in 18 matches almost exclusively organised and financed by the NRL.

Outside a WC, when has the Pacific ever seen such a widespread footprint of representation than it has this year?

Nah, NRL don’t invest in international footy.

Friends like these indeed Dave.

 

Why are the NRL organising these and not supporting the original plan of the IRL staging 6N tournaments.

Posted
1 hour ago, Damien said:

Cool.

Is Grant a Tory? wouldn't be surprised to be honest. The traits are definitely there.

you are mostly right about international rugby league, but one should levae politivs out in general here

especially with such ridiculous comments

  • Like 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, Matthias Wald said:

you are mostly right about international rugby league, but one should levae politivs out in general here

especially with such ridiculous comments

Yes I agree and that's fair. It's not something I normally do and was firmly tongue in cheek.

  • Like 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Dave T said:

Why are the NRL organising these and not supporting the original plan of the IRL staging 6N tournaments.

I’m not sure, but what I would say is, the IRL are not capable of staging anything. They have neither the resources or the finances to do so.

I can’t even remember any specific 6 nations plan. Was that the previous 8 yr international plan or similar international blueprint of the IRL?

Where people whinge of the NRL taking “control” of the international game and acting as “saboteurs”, I find this quite over the top at which point I am happy to position with equally over the top arguments that the NRL are taking “ownership” for the growth of the sport regionally and act in a “decisive” manner for the better of the international game.

The truth almost always lies somewhere in the middle in these arguments. I don’t even necessarily agree with some of the actions the NRL have taken (per Denver and 10 team World Cup) but what I am able to do - which most others on this forum are incapable of - is leave my opinions and emotions aside and having a rational mindset to understand that the NRL are not making these decisions to actively “sabotage” the sport or any of their RL contemporaries, the NRL are making decisions which they believe are in the best interest of the international game, without compromising their remit, stakeholders and commercial partnerships to run the strongest club rugby competition in the world.

  • Like 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

I’m not sure, but what I would say is, the IRL are not capable of staging anything. They have neither the resources or the finances to do so.

I can’t even remember any specific 6 nations plan. Was that the previous 8 yr international plan or similar international blueprint of the IRL?

Where people whinge of the NRL taking “control” of the international game and acting as “saboteurs”, I find this quite over the top at which point I am happy to position with equally over the top arguments that the NRL are taking “ownership” for the growth of the sport regionally and act in a “decisive” manner for the better of the international game.

The truth almost always lies somewhere in the middle in these arguments. I don’t even necessarily agree with some of the actions the NRL have taken (per Denver and 10 team World Cup) but what I am able to do - which most others on this forum are incapable of - is leave my opinions and emotions aside and having a rational mindset to understand that the NRL are not making these decisions to actively “sabotage” the sport or any of their RL contemporaries, the NRL are making decisions which they believe are in the best interest of the international game, without compromising their remit, stakeholders and commercial partnerships to run the strongest club rugby competition in the world.

I'm happy to agree to disagree on the principle of the thing, because that's where we disagree here, I agree with some of your points on certain incidents and disagree with others, but I fundamentally disagree with your underlying point that ultimately they can justify whatever they do as they are just protecting their club comp.

That isn't how things generally work. It's a really insular mentality. And your last point really does actually highlight why the NRL shouldn't be controlling the international game, because as you say, their remit is to put their club comp first above all else.

This is why sports have a model of a World governing body. And you may feel sabotage is over the top, but there is plenty of evidence of them undermining the IRL, tournaments, series, events - and I don't think that's for sh**s and giggles, it's so they can wrestle control and only do exactly what they want and everyone has to fall in line. 

And that is an outcome of the mentality you describe. NRL club game at all costs, whilst ticking the international box. 3 Kangaroos games a year, no more years of up to 7 or 8. That's not what the NRL clubs want.

  • Like 2
Posted
21 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

If that’s the best you have left Damien, then I definitely preferred it when you said you were lost for words.

Yup, that pretty much sums it up.

  • Like 1
Posted
12 hours ago, Dave T said:

I'm happy to agree to disagree on the principle of the thing, because that's where we disagree here, I agree with some of your points on certain incidents and disagree with others, but I fundamentally disagree with your underlying point that ultimately they can justify whatever they do as they are just protecting their club comp.

That isn't how things generally work. It's a really insular mentality. And your last point really does actually highlight why the NRL shouldn't be controlling the international game, because as you say, their remit is to put their club comp first above all else.

This is why sports have a model of a World governing body. And you may feel sabotage is over the top, but there is plenty of evidence of them undermining the IRL, tournaments, series, events - and I don't think that's for sh**s and giggles, it's so they can wrestle control and only do exactly what they want and everyone has to fall in line. 

And that is an outcome of the mentality you describe. NRL club game at all costs, whilst ticking the international box. 3 Kangaroos games a year, no more years of up to 7 or 8. That's not what the NRL clubs want.

I don’t think it’s the club game at all costs. It’s been about having something financially valuable that can substitute for club games. The NRL are stuck with the current club funding agreement, based largely on the tv deal. If you want more internationals, the club season needs to be reduced. They can only do that if they have a substitute that commands tv dollars so the central pot doesn’t diminish. The NRL needs control of the content to retain the profits. 
 

  • Like 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, dealwithit said:

 If you want more internationals, the club season needs to be reduced. 

But that isn't true. It is a flawed starting position that means that every decision that comes off the back of it is flawed.

  • Like 1
Posted
22 hours ago, Dave T said:

But that isn't true. It is a flawed starting position that means that every decision that comes off the back of it is flawed.

The players seem to think so. 

  • Thanks 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, dealwithit said:

The players seem to think so. 

Based on what? If players don't want to play internationals they won't, others will.

The RLPA pushing for the same or more pay for doing less and better conditions shouldn't be a shock. It's what unions do.

  • Like 1
Posted
11 hours ago, Damien said:

Based on what? If players don't want to play internationals they won't, others will.

The RLPA pushing for the same or more pay for doing less and better conditions shouldn't be a shock. It's what unions do.

With or without the RLPA, the players have been very much unified in their views on the season length — both in England and Australia. If the games need to make money, you need high quality contests, and therefore your best players. Unfortunately you won’t get them if they’re playing 30+ club games followed by representative tournaments. 

Posted

Despite all the arguing  of who's done what, one thing  the Aussies have achieved is they have striped NZ of any talent.  

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.