Have the ARL(C) done more harm or good the last 30 years?

[franklin2323]

Huh? Players are paid to play Origin, are they not? Nobody would be paid anything more or less, players would be paid to play Origin and tests just like they are now. You seem to be of the impression that because this won't instantly fix 100% of the problems that it isn't worth doing and isn't a problem in its own right. That's just f**king nonsense. Your arguments make zero sense, and if this is the attitude of most Australians then I can understand why nothing ever gets done.

Yep. $30k per Origin and test. Paid from the $100m Origin makes per year.

I have given you plenty of chance to name a player we have poached due to Origin. None under the new rules!. They were already here just played somewhere else due to loose eligibity rules. It's not like we go to the islands and say to a player 'come and play Origin for money'. If that was the case you would have a point

 

[hutch]

The only player I think Australia has truly poached is ben teo. He came to Australia on a rugby league contract from nz yet still somehow ended up playing for qld and Australia. Every single other player born elsewhere emigrated here and played junior rugby league here. Although I still think its rubbish that uate was ever allowed to play for nsw/Australia after playing for Fiji.

 

[Evil Homer]

Yep. $30k per Origin and test. Paid from the $100m Origin makes per year.

I have given you plenty of chance to name a player we have poached due to Origin. None under the new rules!. They were already here just played somewhere else due to loose eligibity rules. It's not like we go to the islands and say to a player 'come and play Origin for money'. If that was the case you would have a point

It has happened plenty of times in the past with blokes like Uate, Tamou, Costigan etc, the new rules should help somewhat but that isn't the point I'm making. The point is a bloke like Milford played for Samoa in the WC but has to sit out their Four Nations campaign because he wants to play Origin. Feleti Mateo sat out last year's WC because he thought he was a chance of playing Origin. It's just a stupid and unnecessary situation. http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ad-of-tonga-in-origin-bid-20130206-2dyuk.html

 

[hutch]

It has happened plenty of times in the past with blokes like Uate, Tamou, Costigan etc, the new rules should help somewhat but that isn't the point I'm making. The point is a bloke like Milford played for Samoa in the WC but has to sit out their Four Nations campaign because he wants to play Origin. Feleti Mateo sat out last year's WC because he thought he was a chance of playing Origin. It's just a stupid and unnecessary situation. http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ad-of-tonga-in-origin-bid-20130206-2dyuk.html

Those players weren't poached from anywhere though. They all emigrated to Australia with their families and played all of their rugby league here, in the case of costigan he came here as a young child and has an Australian parent. I already said uate shouldn't be allowed to play origin and for australia even though he first played rugby league in nsw, he chose to represent Fiji and should stick with it. Tamou isn't breaking any rules playing for aus, not that I think he is anywhere good enough. Do you feel as outraged about all the Australian born players with tedious links to nz playing for the kiwis?

As for Milford and mateo, they are Australian born and chose to play for other countries. They should be made to stick with that choice. If they don't want to stick with Samoa and tonga then they shouldn't have been picked in the first place, I'm sick of the switching.
If the arl want to only pick players eligible for Australia in state of origin then they have every right.

 

[franklin2323]

Great post Hutch. I would love for a 1 nation for life to come in but the issue becomes minnow nations filling teams. Younger players won't commit older players have committed elsewhere at some stage. Hopefully we get to the stage where we can do that in the near future

 

[Evil Homer]

Those players weren't poached from anywhere though. They all emigrated to Australia with their families and played all of their rugby league here, in the case of costigan he came here as a young child and has an Australian parent. I already said uate shouldn't be allowed to play origin and for australia even though he first played rugby league in nsw, he chose to represent Fiji and should stick with it. Tamou isn't breaking any rules playing for aus, not that I think he is anywhere good enough. Do you feel as outraged about all the Australian born players with tedious links to nz playing for the kiwis?

No, because they qualify under international eligibility laws and haven't been coerced by the promise of playing in a domestic, non-international competition. The point isn't that any rules have been broken, it's that these players have been taken away from other countries because of Origin. It's not a fair system, the choice should be whether you want to represent Australia, not whether you want to be able to play Origin.

As for Milford and mateo, they are Australian born and chose to play for other countries. They should be made to stick with that choice. If they don't want to stick with Samoa and tonga then they shouldn't have been picked in the first place, I'm sick of the switching.

Maybe those players did want to play for Tonga and Samoa but wanted to play Origin as well which has a far greater financial incentive? After all, they're eligible for both and have an equal claim to play for both. It doesn't have anything to do with them playing for Australia or switching nations.

If the arl want to only pick players eligible for Australia in state of origin then they have every right.

So you think it's alright for the ARL to force players from minnow nations to give up international footy and sit out international matches for no reason? Even though it benefits literally no one and greatly harms the international game?

 

[RedVee]

No, because they qualify under international eligibility laws and haven't been coerced by the promise of playing in a domestic, non-international competition. The point isn't that any rules have been broken, it's that these players have been taken away from other countries because of Origin. It's not a fair system, the choice should be whether you want to represent Australia, not whether you want to be able to play Origin.
Maybe those players did want to play for Tonga and Samoa but wanted to play Origin as well which has a far greater financial incentive? After all, they're eligible for both and have an equal claim to play for both. It doesn't have anything to do with them playing for Australia or switching nations.
So you think it's alright for the ARL to force players from minnow nations to give up international footy and sit out international matches for no reason? Even though it benefits literally no one and greatly harms the international game?

But they are not from minnow nations in this example. They are Australians with a heritage background that chose to represent that country because there was no downside to it at the time of the WC. Now there is a downside, can't switch back until after the next WC, they chose to not take the heritage option. If their heritage was Korean or Afghan would you suggest they are not Australian in a RL setting?

 

[deal.with.it]

Very few have been poached for Origin.
Tamou selection was shoddy.
My opinion has always been that "minnow" nations should choose the best available players that want to play for that country only, forever. Not players like Radradra and Lafai that say publicly that they want to play for Australia (Radradra is not eligible for origin so can't blame SoO).

 

[miguel de cervantes]

Is anyone in the corridors of power aware of these issues? Or is it that they just don't care or they don't have the guts to stand up to the ARLC?

These debates are great and need airing but I doubt anyone in administration does this sort of thing because there are too many allegiances and too many toes that may be stepped on. I reckon there is only one man that could plausibly make a difference, thank god he is Welsh at least.

 

[gyallop]

So Evil Homer you must have no problems now with USA heritage players playing for the USA?
Milford didnt sit out 4 Nations due to SOO but he twinged a medial playing for the Prime Ministers X111 and his new club didnt want him to risk it. he could have played and still played origin next year.

 

[Evil Homer]

But they are not from minnow nations in this example. They are Australians with a heritage background that chose to represent that country because there was no downside to it at the time of the WC. Now there is a downside, can't switch back until after the next WC, they chose to not take the heritage option. If their heritage was Korean or Afghan would you suggest they are not Australian in a RL setting?

Of course they're Australians, that doesn't mean they can't represent a different country at international level if they are eligible. The 'downside' is being artificially created by the ARL, with players artificially being forced to commit to Australia for reasons other than just wanting to play for the national team. I've already provided a clear example of a player with 8 caps for Tonga sitting out a major tournament because he thought he had a chance of playing Origin. It happens every year, I don't know why you would want to deny that this is a problem, until people stop burying their heads in the sand and acknowledge it then nothing will change.

Very few have been poached for Origin.
Tamou selection was shoddy.
My opinion has always been that "minnow" nations should choose the best available players that want to play for that country only, forever. Not players like Radradra and Lafai that say publicly that they want to play for Australia (Radradra is not eligible for origin so can't blame SoO).

You're misinterpreting the definition of poaching, although players have been poached in the past the issue here is that Origin is actively discouraging players from playing for other nations. And you have to ask why those blokes want to play for Australia, is it for the financial reward, is it because they want to play Origin? If they just feel like Australians then I don't have a problem with that.

So Evil Homer you must have no problems now with USA heritage players playing for the USA?
Milford didnt sit out 4 Nations due to SOO but he twinged a medial playing for the Prime Ministers X111 and his new club didnt want him to risk it. he could have played and still played origin next year.

I don't have a problem with heritage players in general, the issues with USA at the World Cup last year were totally different and you know it.

 

[hutch]

No, because they qualify under international eligibility laws and haven't been coerced by the promise of playing in a domestic, non-international competition. The point isn't that any rules have been broken, it's that these players have been taken away from other countries because of Origin. It's not a fair system, the choice should be whether you want to represent Australia, not whether you want to be able to play Origin.
Maybe those players did want to play for Tonga and Samoa but wanted to play Origin as well which has a far greater financial incentive? After all, they're eligible for both and have an equal claim to play for both. It doesn't have anything to do with them playing for Australia or switching nations.
So you think it's alright for the ARL to force players from minnow nations to give up international footy and sit out international matches for no reason? Even though it benefits literally no one and greatly harms the international game?

I don't think it's right that uate played origin and Australia after Fiji, or teo after Samoa, or guerra after Italy (although nobody seems to get upset if they're not from a pacific island nation for some reason). So in that sense I don't agree with players dropping their other nation for origin/Australia. They may have 'equal claim' for both, but they should make a choice and stick with it. If that means they sit out for a decade in the hope of representing an Australian state, then so be it. That's their choice to make. Many players choose not to represent Australia despite being born and raised here, nobody gets upset over that and rightly so. NZ have 'poached' as many players from other countries as anyone, have had players with the most tedious links to nz represent them, nobody gets upset.
I want nothing more for the international game to thrive but I want it to be done right. I am more open to players playing origin and for another country, but it won't solve all of our problems, it will bring up a heap of new problems and isn't the best way forward in my opinion. However, it's probably better than what we have now.

 

[Evil Homer]

I don't think it's right that uate played origin and Australia after Fiji, or teo after Samoa, or guerra after Italy (although nobody seems to get upset if they're not from a pacific island nation for some reason). So in that sense I don't agree with players dropping their other nation for origin/Australia. They may have 'equal claim' for both, but they should make a choice and stick with it. If that means they sit out for a decade in the hope of representing an Australian state, then so be it. That's their choice to make.

No, that isn't acceptable. If the players want to sit out in the hope of representing Australia then yeah, that's exactly what should be happening and no one has an issue with that. But having to sit out internationals in the hope of playing for a state, a non-national team, isn't right at all.

You're treating the Australian states like national teams and they are not. SOO is nothing to do with international RL. Absolutely nothing at all to do with it. It's a domestic competition. The sooner all Australians understand this the better.

Many players choose not to represent Australia despite being born and raised here, nobody gets upset over that and rightly so. NZ have 'poached' as many players from other countries as anyone, have had players with the most tedious links to nz represent them, nobody gets upset.

People do get upset when NZ poach players from the Pacific nations. The difference is that those players are poached because they want to play for NZ, not because they want to play in a domestic competition for a non-national team. Again, you're completely misunderstanding the argument here. The point isn't nation swapping or Australian-born players wanting to play for Australia, the point is that players are being coaxed away from international footy because of State of Origin. Which is nothing at all to do with international footy. Nobody is questioning the right of players to play for who they want, that's exactly what we're trying to encourage, freedom of choice without the decision impacting things that aren't related to the international game. The decision for players to make should simply be 'Which country do you want to represent', no ifs or buts or being excluded from certain things based on their choice. If they choose Australia and end up never playing international footy (like John Sutton for example) then there isn't a problem with that.

I want nothing more for the international game to thrive but I want it to be done right. I am more open to players playing origin and for another country, but it won't solve all of our problems, it will bring up a heap of new problems and isn't the best way forward in my opinion. However, it's probably better than what we have now.

No one has said it will solve all the problems, but it will solve some problems. What new problems will it bring up?

 

[hutch]

No, that isn't acceptable. If the players want to sit out in the hope of representing Australia then yeah, that's exactly what should be happening and no one has an issue with that. But having to sit out internationals in the hope of playing for a state, a non-national team, isn't right at all.

You're treating the Australian states like national teams and they are not. SOO is nothing to do with international RL. Absolutely nothing at all to do with it. It's a domestic competition. The sooner all Australians understand this the better.

I understand playing for a state has nothing to do with playing international footy, but the ARL have every right to pick whoever they want for their own rep series and their rules are you must be eligible for Australia. There is nothing wrong with picking only players eligible for Australia. What stinks is when they target players such as uate who was a current Fijian rep. He simply should not be allowed to play origin at all and shouldn't have to switch to Australia to do so. I agree, players such as him should not be targeted by a state and forced to swap to Australia for the benefit of an interstate competition.

People do get upset when NZ poach players from the Pacific nations. The difference is that those players are poached because they want to play for NZ, not because they want to play in a domestic competition for a non-national team. Again, you're completely misunderstanding the argument here. The point isn't nation swapping or Australian-born players wanting to play for Australia, the point is that players are being coaxed away from international footy because of State of Origin. Which is nothing at all to do with international footy. Nobody is questioning the right of players to play for who they want, that's exactly what we're trying to encourage, freedom of choice without the decision impacting things that aren't related to the international game. The decision for players to make should simply be 'Which country do you want to represent', no ifs or buts or being excluded from certain things based on their choice. If they choose Australia and end up never playing international footy (like John Sutton for example) then there isn't a problem with that.

How many players have been coaxed away purely for origin? Uate, Teo and possibly tamou. Doesn't make it right, it absolutely stinks but the amount of anger directed at Australia for this is ridiculous when dozens of players have switched to nz and england. They are both wrong but the circumstances aren't that different.

No one has said it will solve all the problems, but it will solve some problems. What new problems will it bring up?

For one, it reaffirms origin as the so called pinnacle. We are heading towards stand alone weekends in the near future for origin games, I would assume (or hope) on those weekends there will also be tests between either pacific island nations and nz, a pacific island team v nz or a nz origin game. What happens when a player is eligible for both Samoa and nsw? How ridiculous would it be if they picked origin over the country they so desperately want to play for. What if a player plays for nz in the mid year test, then nsw in the origin series while nz play their own rep series. What if 15 top Samoan players all play for nsw? It damages the integrity of both origin and test football. Or if a player plays origin and then for England at years end? Why should players be able to get everything that they want without committing to anything, play for an Aussie state, then their heritage nation, then switch to Australia for a year, then back to heritage nation? (I suppose we have that now anyway).

I would rather build our international game up so that players want to play for these nations then do it artificially like this would suggest. A regular schedule for all nations, end nations swapping or at least make it harder to do so and a lot more funding to all nations for either match payments or facilities would go a long way to building our sport up over the next decade without being a quick fix.

 

[franklin2323]

Spot on. Lifting the standard and presitage of the international game. SOO is valued at $100m per season. Imagine the international game on similar money. That has to be the aim long term getting money into the game

 

[Evil Homer]

I understand playing for a state has nothing to do with playing international footy, but the ARL have every right to pick whoever they want for their own rep series and their rules are you must be eligible for Australia. There is nothing wrong with picking only players eligible for Australia. What stinks is when they target players such as uate who was a current Fijian rep. He simply should not be allowed to play origin at all and shouldn't have to switch to Australia to do so. I agree, players such as him should not be targeted by a state and forced to swap to Australia for the benefit of an interstate competition.

How many players have been coaxed away purely for origin? Uate, Teo and possibly tamou. Doesn't make it right, it absolutely stinks but the amount of anger directed at Australia for this is ridiculous when dozens of players have switched to nz and england. They are both wrong but the circumstances aren't that different.

Again, coaxing players away that were born and raised in other countries is only half the problem (and AFAIK one that has now been fixed), the point is players sitting out international matches to play Origin. I've already provided several examples of this. Yes, the ARL can set their own rules and nobody can stop them but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Origin is a carrot that the other nations don't have, if players switch nations because they want to play for Australia (or England or NZ) then that's fine, if players switch because they want to play in an Australian state competition then that's a big problem, they are effectively leaving the international game. It's quite a big difference.

Who benefits from the ARL forcing players to declare for Australia in order to play Origin? What is the practical purpose of it? As far as I can see, the only thing being achieved is weakening other national teams and thus keeping Australia dominant.

For one, it reaffirms origin as the so called pinnacle. We are heading towards stand alone weekends in the near future for origin games, I would assume (or hope) on those weekends there will also be tests between either pacific island nations and nz, a pacific island team v nz or a nz origin game. What happens when a player is eligible for both Samoa and nsw? How ridiculous would it be if they picked origin over the country they so desperately want to play for. What if a player plays for nz in the mid year test, then nsw in the origin series while nz play their own rep series. What if 15 top Samoan players all play for nsw? It damages the integrity of both origin and test football. Or if a player plays origin and then for England at years end? Why should players be able to get everything that they want without committing to anything, play for an Aussie state, then their heritage nation, then switch to Australia for a year, then back to heritage nation? (I suppose we have that now anyway).

I would rather build our international game up so that players want to play for these nations then do it artificially like this would suggest. A regular schedule for all nations, end nations swapping or at least make it harder to do so and a lot more funding to all nations for either match payments or facilities would go a long way to building our sport up over the next decade without being a quick fix.

I disagree, it affirms Origin as a state series, which is what it is. If players qualify for NSW then they should be able to play for NSW, after all they would still be NSWelshman and NSWRL products regardless of which national team they play for. We're not talking about changing the eligibility rules as to which players qualify for Origin, if a player is from NSW or Queensland and qualifies under the Origin rules then why should his national team choice matter?

If players were choosing to play Origin over an international on the same weekend it wouldn't really mean anything since it's not a like for like comparison, it would be like playing for your club instead of playing an international match, which already happens a lot. And that's still a hell of a lot better than players just not playing for their chosen country at all so they can play Origin.

I agree with your second paragraph but it's not an either/or situation, there are many problems that need to be fixed and this is one of them. Making vague statements about unrelated problems or 'quick fixes' or whatever doesn't do anyone any good, removing Australian eligibility from Origin would provide a boost to international footy and remove a needless problem being caused by the ARL. Yes, there are many problems that need to be solved, and this would solve one.

 

[Ernest the Sheep]

I don't think it's right that uate played origin and Australia after Fiji, or teo after Samoa, or guerra after Italy (although nobody seems to get upset if they're not from a pacific island nation for some reason).

I'll tell you what the reason is. To the racists, players of Pacific Island heritage aren't really "proper" Ockers, like the Europeans are. For example I don't recall there being any particular dismay over DCE choosing to represent Oz, in fact it was fully expected that he would. No suggestion that but for Origin he'd be a Pom.

No, this isn't really about concern for int league. It's basically just ocker bashing borne of jealousy. The carry on over the obvious Hall no try would be comical, if it wasn't so pathetic. It takes a certain level of self delusion to convince yourself that what has never been a try in rugby league, not even in the pommy poncy league, or whatever it's called, is miraculously now one.

The whinging Poms in here really need to mind their own business. The arrogance in lecturing Oz on how to run their own domestic competition is simply staggering. ( I presume Jack Read is injured as he is not in the Pommy team?, and wasn't it funny to see true blue kiwi hoffman pack a sad because he didn't make the kiwis, now he wants to go back to being an ocker and play for Qld!!)

 

[deal.with.it]

Of course it's a combination of the financial reward for playing origin/australia, and the opportunity to play in the biggest matches in the code.

If the other internationals weret treated with the same level as the anzac test or SoO, it would be different.

To say they have been poached is incorrect.

The NRL is doing more now than ever to help the pacific nations. Dave Smith and John Grant have said they want to build RL's international presence.

But, Evil Homer, you are letting other NGBs off the hook and blaming Australia.

Not everything is Australia's fault (yes, a big portion is!).

Tell me this, why hasn't the PNGRFL shared the broadcast of their test matches (v Tonga and v Aus PMs) to the world?

Why hasn't the RLEF/Ireland/Scotland/Wales streamed the Euro Champs?

Why hasn't Canada RL properly welcomed the BC group into the fold, and why are they striving to enter League 1?

Why isn't the Super League broadcast on Australian TV (other than the awful EuroSport coverage)?

Why isn't the Cook Islands playing matches?

Why is Thailand selling franchises for something that doesn't exist?

Why is the Philippines doing next to nothing in the Philippines?

I could keep going...

The point is, each of these NGBs have a job to do. And very few of them are getting the little things right before playing "test matches".

For the Pacific Island nations, and to a lesser extent the Celtic Nations, why don't they choose players that only want to play for them? That is the NGBs decision, not the players'. Destiny is in their own hands. They get to create the policy and procedure. Why is Samoa complaining about Milford, while they have Simona putting his body on the line. They should be working on making Simona the long term full back, ensuring his pride and passion is only for Samoa, and not for NSW/Australia.

Sika Manu recently explained how he chose Tonga over NZ. He only wants to play for Tonga. The Tonga NGB came out and said they need more people like Manu. Voicing their pride. Telling the world that they won't be bought.

Shame the same thing couldn't be said for Sam Moa.

 

[franklin2323]

Great post.

Don't get me wrong ARL aren't innocent in all of this. We are talking them affecting a few pacific islands (Which happens in other sports)

Europe is behind where they should be due to population, history etc. Pacific rarely plays tests. Like you mentioned plenty of tests yet only the 4 nations is televised.

International RL should be looking at SOO and thinking 'How do we get $100m'. Not blaming that $100m product.

 

[Evil Homer]

Of course it's a combination of the financial reward for playing origin/australia, and the opportunity to play in the biggest matches in the code.

If the other internationals weret treated with the same level as the anzac test or SoO, it would be different.

To say they have been poached is incorrect.

The NRL is doing more now than ever to help the pacific nations. Dave Smith and John Grant have said they want to build RL's international presence.

But, Evil Homer, you are letting other NGBs off the hook and blaming Australia.

Not everything is Australia's fault (yes, a big portion is!).

Tell me this, why hasn't the PNGRFL shared the broadcast of their test matches (v Tonga and v Aus PMs) to the world?

Why hasn't the RLEF/Ireland/Scotland/Wales streamed the Euro Champs?

Why hasn't Canada RL properly welcomed the BC group into the fold, and why are they striving to enter League 1?

Why isn't the Super League broadcast on Australian TV (other than the awful EuroSport coverage)?

Why isn't the Cook Islands playing matches?

Why is Thailand selling franchises for something that doesn't exist?

Why is the Philippines doing next to nothing in the Philippines?

I could keep going...

The point is, each of these NGBs have a job to do. And very few of them are getting the little things right before playing "test matches".

For the Pacific Island nations, and to a lesser extent the Celtic Nations, why don't they choose players that only want to play for them? That is the NGBs decision, not the players'. Destiny is in their own hands. They get to create the policy and procedure. Why is Samoa complaining about Milford, while they have Simona putting his body on the line. They should be working on making Simona the long term full back, ensuring his pride and passion is only for Samoa, and not for NSW/Australia.

Sika Manu recently explained how he chose Tonga over NZ. He only wants to play for Tonga. The Tonga NGB came out and said they need more people like Manu. Voicing their pride. Telling the world that they won't be bought.

Shame the same thing couldn't be said for Sam Moa.

Agreed with all of this. This thread isn't about those other bodies though, it's about the ARL and the problems they cause. To sweep them under the carpet because other nations also have problems and things that they could do better is counter-productive. They do, so do the ARL, and fixing these problems would go a long way to helping the game since the ARL is by far the biggest and most powerful NGB.

FWIW players with dual eligibility wanting to play for more high-profile and 'prestigious' nations is an unavoidable problem, it happens in all international sport and there's nothing much we can do about it. The problem I was addressing is players giving up international RL to play Origin, which is an avoidable problem. There's no reason it has to be a choice between the two. People keep bringing up the word poached but it isn't to do with that, it's to do with players being forced by the ARL to make a choice between two things which aren't mutually exclusive.

International RL should be looking at SOO and thinking 'How do we get $100m'. Not blaming that $100m product.

It's not 'blaming', it's a suggestion of something that would be really simple to rectify and be a big boost to the sport with no downside. De-link Origin from Australian national team eligibility and you're instantly leveling the playing field. Yes, there's still a funding gap, but this would reduce the gap. And that's certainly much more helpful in the short term than suggesting that international RL somehow finds $100m out of thin air. FWIW top players playing in matches for the Pacific (or European) nations would massively boost their profile and thus generate more money for the international game, and equally increase the appetite for these nations to play more regular and meaningful matches.