A "throwaway" comment that follows a theme on this board championed by one group composed mainly of English, that if it's Australian/NRL it's wrong, or not enough, or to much, or a wast of time, or out place, or designed to give Australia an unfair advantage, etc, etc.
Of course this attitude ignores the fact that Australia and/or the NRL don't have to do anything outside the boarders of Australia, so if we do anything at all internationally it is going above what is expected.
Then if anyone calls you on this attitude or questions your reasoning as to why you hold this attitude you start calling them paranoid or saying that Australians have a chip on their shoulder, etc, etc, instead of defending your attitude or explaining it, or whatever.
Look, it's not difficult. If a hurling team set up near you in Australia and started calling themselves the Shamrocks you would probably think it was an Irish expat thing and might be less likely to engage with the team or take an interest than if they had a more general name. And if for some reason you did decide to take up hurling, you might feel a little silly or out-of-place as an Australian playing an 'Irish' sport. The same thing applies to RL in America because unlike you, people in America are not Australian and do not know know what RL is. If you present the sport as an Australian cultural thing then nobody will care because nobody in America cares about Australian culture or sports, just like you don't care about Irish culture or sports. It's nothing to do with England or the ARL or the NRL, nobody has even mentioned that shit. It's to do with the fact that if you present something as a niche cultural thing for an obscure foreign culture then nobody outside of that culture is going to care. If you still don't understand then that's your problem because it really has been explained as clearly as possible.A "throwaway" comment that follows a theme on this board championed by one group composed mainly of English, that if it's Australian/NRL it's wrong, or not enough, or to much, or a wast of time, or out place, or designed to give Australia an unfair advantage, etc, etc.
Of course this attitude ignores the fact that Australia and/or the NRL don't have to do anything outside the boarders of Australia, so if we do anything at all internationally it is going above what is expected.
Then if anyone calls you on this attitude or questions your reasoning as to why you hold this attitude you start calling them paranoid or saying that Australians have a chip on their shoulder, etc, etc, instead of defending your attitude or explaining it, or whatever.
Comparing the RFL and the ARL/NRL isn't accurate because the RFL set up and initially funded the RLEF, which does all the international development work and now is mostly self-sufficient. The RFL don't do anything themselves and SL doesn't exist as a body, so in that respect yes, the ARLC/NRL does more.I disagree. I've read your argument, but simply disagree. I also disagree with the hurling and shamrocks analogy. But i'm probs in the minority.
In regards to aprlc/rlef argument, you've twisted my words. What i said is that the arlc/nrl has done more in the pacific than the rfl/sl has in europe.
And i stand by that from knowing exactly what is happening in the pacific from the nrl.
I commend the work of the rlef and danny k.
But the RFL founded and financed the RLEF, it wouldn't exist without them. The NRL's Pacific strategy is fine but you claimed that the ARL have done more than the RFL has and that's just not true, even though the NRL has infinitely more resources than the meager RFL development budget. I don't even like the RFL, I don't know why you think I do, but this is like comparing the charity contributions of a millionaire and a guy on benefits, and the guy on benefits still ends up contributing more.I disagree that the nickname would have the effect you described. I wouldn't react that way, but i may br in the minority.
Yes the rfl imitially funded the rlef. But the rlif actually funds the rlef now. That pays for danny's salary and a few part timers.they then apply for external funding.
Whilst the rlif also funds the aprlc, the nrl is actually doing even more in the pacific.
I'm sure scotland, wales and ireland would love a bit more $ from the rfl.
They sure as hell don't much at all from the rlef.
But the RFL founded and financed the RLEF, it wouldn't exist without them. The NRL's Pacific strategy is fine but you claimed that the ARL have done more than the RFL has and that's just not true, even though the NRL has infinitely more resources than the meager RFL development budget. I don't even like the RFL, I don't know why you think I do, but this is like comparing the charity contributions of a millionaire and a guy on benefits, and the guy on benefits still ends up contributing more.
(and funding international RL is definitely not charity BTW but the short-sighted idiots in charge probably see it that way)
The Wombats you say .....
I'd say a nice wattle green jersey with a couple of gold / orange 'V's would be a good look.
Or perhaps a black jersey with white V's or a White jersey with a red and blue V. :roll:
(Actually probably best they play nude ...so as not to stir up any pathetic arguments over the choice of colours !)
No, it's just not a great idea to have a name transplanted from a different and foreign culture, it risks pigeon-holing the sport and alienating the people that you're trying to attract. Similar to MLS teams having names like Real Salt Lake and Sporting Kansas, it just sounds awkward. Or London Broncos if you want a RL example, a great American/Australian name that did nothing to engage with anyone in London.