- So it is just about money, which is disappointing. I disagree that a PNG side would be 'a money pit' and I think it would bring just as much international development to rugby league that a NZ 2 side would.
Actually it's not just about money it's also about bring more resources into NZ to help develop the sport in NZ, but I guess that NZ aren't "deserving" of that are they...
- Yes, we should invest into improving it, but just dropping teams into it isn't investing or improving it. No one is saying just drop the Hunters into the NRL.
Actually depending on the team, how they are introduced, and what they bring to the comp, yes dropping some teams into the lower tiers is investing in the lower tiers and/ or improving them, but I can't be bothered to really go into it, so I'll just say look at the interest that clubs like Toronto and Toulouse have brought to League 1 and Championship in England in the last few years... They've had more exposure in the last few years then they had over the previous 10 before that, and more interest, money, and opportunities have followed because of it...
- What exactly are we making all this money for? It's to grow rugby league is it not? Or is it so everyone involved in the NRL gets richer - admin, coaches, players etc? When it comes to what it is there for, the NRL is indeed a charity. The problem with the NRL is still the insularity and selfishness of all involved, and this is the same ridiculousness you kept coming out with in the Denver Test thread, because the NRL and its clubs exist solely to make money apparently, and not for the good of our sport.
Actually they're making that money cause the NRL is a business, it needs to at least break even to be not only successful but to exist! The spare change also helps with spreading the game and growth by the way (and as an aside, actually NRL invests more into the growth of the sport than any other RL organisation in the world, outside of Australia most of it goes to the PIs, and until last year they were basically funding the NZRLs existence as well, they could and should definitely do more, but over the last decade or so they've only increased their spending in this department and I see no signs of that stopping anytime soon)...
Your problem is you are an idealist, foregoing progress in the pursuit of perfection, when progress is the only path to perfection. Unfortunately what is ideal, what we want to see, and what we would like the sport to be isn't always practical (yet).
If we did what you'd like, when you'd like it, and how you'd like, we'd be throwing money after all sorts of ventures that are doomed to failure, or never to provide a return on the investment, or to be so exorbitantly expensive that they aren't worth doing cause of the cost. That is bad business, you've got to live within you're means, take risks yes, but don't bet the house on anything either.
If the NRL and NRL clubs did only what was perceived to be "for the good of the game" they'd go broke relatively quickly, cause every cent that came into the NRL/clubs would be directly reinvested into the sport on some level all over the world, and they wouldn't keep any to maintain themselves, and the NRL going broke would not be "for the good of the game".
Just look at the ARU and tell me that them sending themselves broke "for the good of the game", letting other members of SANZAAR walk all over them and directly impede their ability to sustain themselves, throwing money into bad investment after bad investment has been good! Now cause of their overreach, over spending, and poor judgement they risk losing everything, we do not want that for the NRL and RL.
And I'm sorry that you are morally bankrupt and think that it's ok that unaffiliated organisations are using NRL clubs resources at their expense without providing compensation (of some sort) for their loses just cause you see the NRL as the 'rich and powerful' and able to take it, really I am sorry, cause now a precedent has been set in our sport that it's ok to directly negatively effect other clubs and competitions for your own gain in that way, and you're right, in the long run the NRL clubs will be fine with the loses that are sustained from losing those players for a short time, the injuries sustained during the games, etc, but I'm not sure that other federations or clubs in other competitions will be ok in the long run if similar circumstances happen to them, in fact if it was to happen regularly to countries like France or many of the other smaller nations it could cripple their local competitions (that definitely wouldn't be for the good of the game...), but the precedent has been set, and once a precedent is set it's extremely hard to over throw it... But again this is neither the time or the place.
- I don't have a problem with Adelaide, I have a problem with placing Adelaide above far more deserving markets which would add a lot more to the game.
What benefits would having the Hunters in the NRL over the QLDcup actually provide? Cause I can't think of any significant ones. And what makes you say that they'd add more to the game than Adelaide?
Apart from the monetarily benefits having an Adelaide team in the NRL would bring more exposure to the sport in that part of the country, over time it'd attract a lot more people to the sport in that part of the world, including participants and juniors, it'd create inroads into that talent pool, etc, etc. I mean we either already have or still couldn't obtain all of the above in PNG if a PNG NRL team were a part of the NRL, so again what exactly would we be adding that we don't already have by adding a PNG NRL team.
And as an aside, who exactly the f##k are you to say what markets are or aren't "deserving" to take part in the NRL? And what specifically makes a market "deserving" to take part in the NRL?
