Tyrone McCarthy criticizes international segregation

[adamkungl]

I think that there is a couple of options to overcome this, not all worth implementing but certainly worth considering.

First,
I would exlcude all international match payments from the NRL/ESL salary cap. Meaning that this would allow Clubs and/or third party sponsors to sponsor a players wages in international games. For example someone like James McManus (made up wages) who has an 100,000 a year contract with Newcastle could be offered a contract for $40,000 but if he is good enough to play for Scotland, in their three matches for the year, he would get an extra $30,000 (or whatever figure newcastle agrees to pay) per game. This would mean that Newcastle would save $60,000 on their Salary Cap, McManus would want to play for scotland because it is his fiancial well being to do so and the international game would get much stronger. the same incentives would obviously apply to Australia or origin rep games, but they are less attractive, because noone can really guarantee Australian selction, but with Scotland, fiji etc you can go pretty close to guaranteeing selection if you are not injured.

Second
And again i dont think this is totally out of the question. although it should have been done much earlier. If we had interational weekends on origin night and Australian test weekends. You could take the total current prize money paid to Origin and Test players and split it evenly over all nations playing a test, so that all test players receive equal pay. Again, it would be financially in a players interest to play for smaller nations because they have more chance of playing in that nation. Depending on figures it might be viable for only SL/NRL players to receive this, though i am undecided on this. I know it means the current 30,000 per player would be greatly reduced to about 5000 or 10000 per player, but i actually think that the players would accept this provided there is a fair portion of the funds being paid to them (as a whole). They would be happy to play for nothing at all, they just want to be treated fairly.

Third
And it is a chicken and egg situation, but the Rlif needs to be helped to market the international game and sell the rights to international games. Rugby league is such a popular tv product, pretty much anything rates. With the right marketing, the money made from the international game can be massive.

There is no way Origin and Kangaroos players will take a paycut. Not in a thousand years. Anyway, they're the ones bringing in the massive sponsorships and crowds, it doesn't make sense to take money from them.

It would have to come out of the RLIFs (and thus the ARLC and RFL) pocket. Smart scheduling such as double headers and getting TV networks behind it could help a lot, with the goal of makig it self-sustaining or profitable in a few years.

 

[RedVee]

My preferred situation is one nation for life. No ifs buts or maybes (though i might consider the exceptional circumstances switch provided that exceptional circumstances only occurs which switching from a top 3 nation to one a lesser nation. in other words there needs to be some exceptional need. Not just it is my dream or i feel like it. The reality is the current administrators have shown that they are incapable of administering this and it seems that they obviously want teams that are as strong as possible. Strangely enough, i can see their piont, even though i actually think one nation for life has a better chance of achieving this.

The point of what i suggested is that maybe we shoudl fortget the rule arguing and concentrating on ideas to promote the game. Go the hole hog of allowing switches. This idea does have advantages. (of course there are disadavantages but that is mainly just the bad publicity from nation hopping and we seem to live with this anyway).

You mention the lack of main tests. Well let us take say new zealand vs Tonga which is often scheduled. How can this ever be a big match, when the best 17 form Tongans are always selected for New Zealand. Under what i proposed, not only would it be possible for Samoa to keep 2 or 3 players who are actually good enough to play for NZ (because they played for Samoa first) but their team would also be boosted by in form Australians and players who may even be good enough to make the Australian team. (i know i live in the past but there was a time when Tonga had argubly the best back row in the game with Dymock, Tallis and Huamono). This coudl never happen now, but under my proposal it actually would. THis would make this a huge game, and likely attract a much bigger crowd and more important monetary interest. This can be used to grow the game in the actual nations.

That is actually one way of ensuring 'bigger' games for the other Nations. And as you point out, for some of these that is a problem as opposed to just playing games.

When did Tallis play for Tonga? Or indicate he'd prefer Tonga over Australia representation?

 

[bender]

When did Tallis play for Tonga? Or indicate he'd prefer Tonga over Australia representation?

Now your testing my memory. I think it was the 96 World cup? or around this time. though to be fair he wanted to play for tonga because australia didnt want him. From memory fate intervened and stopped him from representing Tonga due to injury. And at the same time, the ARL selected Jim Dymock who was already the Tonga captain and had played for them for several years.

 

[bender]

There is no way Origin and Kangaroos players will take a paycut. Not in a thousand years. Anyway, they're the ones bringing in the massive sponsorships and crowds, it doesn't make sense to take money from them.

It would have to come out of the RLIFs (and thus the ARLC and RFL) pocket. Smart scheduling such as double headers and getting TV networks behind it could help a lot, with the goal of makig it self-sustaining or profitable in a few years.

I am not so sure this is correct. I can remember just this year watching a couple of Aussies taking a hard line on this stance and demanding pay increases. But when taken to task by i think it was Benji Marshall about NZ players not getting the same, the agreed and admitted that really just wanted the money to go to the players and if that had to be shared with New Zealand then that was no problem.

If put properly, i think that players only really want their fair share. I dont think they would worry too much about it, if other players were getting the benefits of it.

 

[bender]

The games involving made-up teams are not 'high quality'. They are nonsensical glorified exhibition games that help nobody and are based off ill-conceived ideas such as the ones you've put forward in this post.

Sounds exactly what they used to say about State of origin:lol:

You don't need to make up teams to expose players to high-quality competition. There is absolutely no reason that this has to happen at all.

I am sorry, but this is completely wrong. which team (other than New Zealand, England orAustralia) can beat either of those three teams, more than once in 10 outings? If you think any of them can under current rules, you are dreaming. i dont like it or even want it to be the case, but it is and to think otherwise is deluding yourself.

Origin is totally irrelevant to anything, you're not comparing like for like. What would be the point in creating a Celtic team, or a GB team? What would this possibly hope to achieve other than pushing the actual nations (which, if you hadn't realized, are the sole proponents of the international game which we are supposed to be developing) down to a lesser status? Why do RL fans and administrators feel the need to make up contrived bullshit instead of treating the international game and the nations involved with respect? You've mentioned Scotland v England and I agree with the point you've made, but when is the last time those two nations met? And what contribution could a manufactured 'Celtic' team possibly have other than making such exposure for nations like Scotland even less likely?

I think you are completely wrong on this. If GB still played internationals say at the end of the year in the Quad Series. It would mean that England vs Wales vs Scotland vs Ireland could each play a full blown quad series during the season. This would mean that the lesser countries could encourage and maintain their best players using Brough as an example. Unfortunately, as we have seen, england would still win by 40 pionts at the moment. that is why, you probably need a Celtic team to bridge that gap. If you can get the 5 best players from each of the three nations, you have a team that can push England and those players will improve because of it. Conversely, they will learn and improve when they then play for their home nations.

I think this quote accurately sums up the problem with people's attitude towards the international game:

'If guys like Brough, Williams etc are allowed to play in these high class Celtic (or GB) games, then there will be no need or desire to switch to England.'

Why do these players need to play for made-up teams in order to be involved in 'high class games'? Why can't they play in high class games for their own nations? That's the exact point that Richards and McCarthy have made, and a perfect illustration of what is wrong with international RL.

Because Wales (much less Scotland and Ireland) do not have enough good players to make a high quality game. Celtic or GB would expose those players to another level. It is possible that this could change with one nation for life, but at the moment, it is simply impossible. That is just a fact of life.

If we were getting great crowds (even between for the big three nations) and each of them could sell out games against anyone, we wouldnt need to worry, but at the moment competitive games is the only way to make money and expose players to the higher level.

 

[RedVee]

Now your testing my memory. I think it was the 96 World cup? or around this time. though to be fair he wanted to play for tonga because australia didnt want him. From memory fate intervened and stopped him from representing Tonga due to injury. And at the same time, the ARL selected Jim Dymock who was already the Tonga captain and had played for them for several years.

Thanks.

 

[Bovrick]

I think that there is a couple of options to overcome this, not all worth implementing but certainly worth considering.

First,
I would exlcude all international match payments from the NRL/ESL salary cap. Meaning that this would allow Clubs and/or third party sponsors to sponsor a players wages in international games. For example someone like James McManus (made up wages) who has an 100,000 a year contract with Newcastle could be offered a contract for $40,000 but if he is good enough to play for Scotland, in their three matches for the year, he would get an extra $30,000 (or whatever figure newcastle agrees to pay) per game. This would mean that Newcastle would save $60,000 on their Salary Cap, McManus would want to play for scotland because it is his fiancial well being to do so and the international game would get much stronger. the same incentives would obviously apply to Australia or origin rep games, but they are less attractive, because noone can really guarantee Australian selction, but with Scotland, fiji etc you can go pretty close to guaranteeing selection if you are not injured.

Second
And again i dont think this is totally out of the question. although it should have been done much earlier. If we had interational weekends on origin night and Australian test weekends. You could take the total current prize money paid to Origin and Test players and split it evenly over all nations playing a test, so that all test players receive equal pay. Again, it would be financially in a players interest to play for smaller nations because they have more chance of playing in that nation. Depending on figures it might be viable for only SL/NRL players to receive this, though i am undecided on this. I know it means the current 30,000 per player would be greatly reduced to about 5000 or 10000 per player, but i actually think that the players would accept this provided there is a fair portion of the funds being paid to them (as a whole). They would be happy to play for nothing at all, they just want to be treated fairly.

Third
And it is a chicken and egg situation, but the Rlif needs to be helped to market the international game and sell the rights to international games. Rugby league is such a popular tv product, pretty much anything rates. With the right marketing, the money made from the international game can be massive.

I have to agree that combating the financial clout of the Big 3 would go a long way to improving competitiveness of the other nations, and I'm really surprised that there rarely seems to be a debate about incentivising players to play internationals through the domestic salary caps. It's an avenue to consider definitely.

And on the blacklisting rubbish, the idea of players standing down obviously was there to disincentivise switches - but I think a large amount of distaste comes from situations like the Rangi Chase one for England, in which a player played for and against their "single" international team in successive competitions. I do feel there is something to be said for continuity in international teams even if you're happy to abandon the idea of nation-hopping as a problem.

 

[Evil Homer]

Sounds exactly what they used to say about State of origin:lol:

And despite its popularity, Origin continues to be a scourge on the international game, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

I am sorry, but this is completely wrong. which team (other than New Zealand, England orAustralia) can beat either of those three teams, more than once in 10 outings? If you think any of them can under current rules, you are dreaming. i dont like it or even want it to be the case, but it is and to think otherwise is deluding yourself.

Whether or not they would win regularly is irrelevant, the fact is that they should be given the opportunity. They certainly will never be able to even come close if we continue to deem them 'not good enough' and not allow them to play because of that. If these nations get flogged, then who cares? What matters is that they are given the opportunity to compete at the highest level. And by that I mean the nations, not players who might happen to be included in some sort of all-encompassing made-up team because some people in England and Australia have decided that international RL isn't good enough or worth bothering with.

I think you are completely wrong on this. If GB still played internationals say at the end of the year in the Quad Series. It would mean that England vs Wales vs Scotland vs Ireland could each play a full blown quad series during the season. This would mean that the lesser countries could encourage and maintain their best players using Brough as an example. Unfortunately, as we have seen, england would still win by 40 pionts at the moment. that is why, you probably need a Celtic team to bridge that gap. If you can get the 5 best players from each of the three nations, you have a team that can push England and those players will improve because of it. Conversely, they will learn and improve when they then play for their home nations.

There isn't space during the season to stage a quad-series, and such a series would have little to no impact other than being an unwelcome distraction for most fans and players. People are interested in the end-of-year internationals. I don't care about an artificially created team that can 'push England', I want to see international RL. And if you honestly think that full-time professional players who train 5 days a week and play 30+ matches a season at a high level will somehow improve from playing a one-off match for a made-up team against England, then you are the one who is deluded. These players can improve from a step-up in intensity, made-up teams and matches do not provide this and never will.

Because Wales (much less Scotland and Ireland) do not have enough good players to make a high quality game. Celtic or GB would expose those players to another level. It is possible that this could change with one nation for life, but at the moment, it is simply impossible. That is just a fact of life.

Again, who are you to say that those nations aren't good enough and don't deserve to play? How do you expect them to ever improve or have any reasonable players commit to them when right off the bat you are treating them as second-class non-entities who aren't good enough to even deserve a chance? Why do we allow these nations to play in the World Cup if they aren't good enough in your eyes?

If we were getting great crowds (even between for the big three nations) and each of them could sell out games against anyone, we wouldnt need to worry, but at the moment competitive games is the only way to make money and expose players to the higher level.

Why do you keep talking about 'exposing players to the higher level' as if creating made-up teams is the only way to do this? Australia, NZ and England are the best teams in the world at present, so the matches between them will obviously be the highest quality. That doesn't mean other teams should not be allowed to play them, or that such matches would be worthless just because they aren't the same intensity, obviously that can't be the case. If you want to expose players from other nations to that level, then have the other nations play against them, it seems pretty simple to me.

I agree with your point about making money, but an international sport with only three nations has a pretty low ceiling in that regard. Again, we'll (hopefully) see a lot of interest in the World Cup, because these games are treated as a big occasion and given the respect they deserve. And as a result crowds will be good and top players will be willing to commit to lesser nations. The rest of the time, these nations are thrown on the scrapheap by people who arrogantly think that they aren't good enough to play and instead prefer to mess around with made-up teams and other stupid ideas. If we ever want to get anywhere as an international sport then this has to change.

 

[bender]

And despite its popularity, Origin continues to be a scourge on the international game, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

I dont really agree that it is a scourge on the international game. Without it, Australia may not even bother with the international game as sad as that would be. The point is that Qld origin was said to be contrived, made up and would never work. It proves that contrived and made up teams can be marketed and developed into sides that are supported by everyone. West Indies Cricket are another example and i suppose to a much lesser extent the barbarians rugby union team.

Whether or not they would win regularly is irrelevant, the fact is that they should be given the opportunity. They certainly will never be able to even come close if we continue to deem them 'not good enough' and not allow them to play because of that. If these nations get flogged, then who cares? What matters is that they are given the opportunity to compete at the highest level. And by that I mean the nations, not players who might happen to be included in some sort of all-encompassing made-up team because some people in England and Australia have decided that international RL isn't good enough or worth bothering with.

I am not totally against this, at all. Why does Cetlic playing England mean that Ireland can't play England or anyone else. I dont say that their should be only these games. If Ireland can arrange to play Australia then so be it, that would be good. Certainly at the world cup, we would see them get their chance, which is the only time they really get a chance now. On a separate note, i think that a Wales, Ireland, Scotland France and possibly even Lebanon and Italy have a massive opportunity to develop self sustaining international rugby league competitions between themselves. And self Sustaining is one of the keys that will help international league grow. USA, Canada and Jamaica are hopefully doing the same. hopefully PNG, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga will soon get there. PNG and Fiji almost are It is the development of self funding competitions between like nations that really are the key in the long term. The heritage teams that we talk of on this thread only benefit by the money they earn (in the big 3 countries). Sadly, at the moment, it is only competive games for the big three that create this interest (outside the world cup and i suppose to a lesser extent the quad nations).

There isn't space during the season to stage a quad-series, and such a series would have little to no impact other than being an unwelcome distraction for most fans and players. People are interested in the end-of-year internationals. I don't care about an artificially created team that can 'push England', I want to see international RL. And if you honestly think that full-time professional players who train 5 days a week and play 30+ matches a season at a high level will somehow improve from playing a one-off match for a made-up team against England, then you are the one who is deluded. These players can improve from a step-up in intensity, made-up teams and matches do not provide this and never will.

There is space to hold a quad series. The english SL needs to look at aligning its season with the NRL. Which, incidentally has the time to take off for 3 games for origin and usually a mid season test with the kiwis. There is no reason why the ESL cant do the same. I think it will happen reasonably soon.

Again, who are you to say that those nations aren't good enough and don't deserve to play? How do you expect them to ever improve or have any reasonable players commit to them when right off the bat you are treating them as second-class non-entities who aren't good enough to even deserve a chance? Why do we allow these nations to play in the World Cup if they aren't good enough in your eyes?

It is a reality that these sides are not good enough at the moment. It is not their fault, they are developing countries and minority sports in those countries. Even in fully developed pro countries, it is impossible to produce players that could compete with Australia, New Zealand and England. As strong as australia is, if they were forced to play with players from outside the Pro comps of NRL/ESL they would not do any better than France do at the moment. So imagine if they had to use only amateur players like the other nations. Why do you expect these nations to do what Australia can't. Sure heritage players can help artificially inflate this standard and they largely do. For a world cup every 4 years this is great and maybe even for the occassional quad games. But interest will be lost if fans have to watch these thrashings year in and year out.

Why do you keep talking about 'exposing players to the higher level' as if creating made-up teams is the only way to do this? Australia, NZ and England are the best teams in the world at present, so the matches between them will obviously be the highest quality. That doesn't mean other teams should not be allowed to play them, or that such matches would be worthless just because they aren't the same intensity, obviously that can't be the case. If you want to expose players from other nations to that level, then have the other nations play against them, it seems pretty simple to me.

i have no problem with other nations playing against these teams. In fact, i think that if Australia were (this year) to have played Lebanon at Central Coast, Italy in Perth and PNG/samoa or Tonga in Mackay, it would have been every bit as good as playing a tri-series. A celtic side is more an opportunity to help the England side grow by giving them a healthy rival to build a state of origin type interest in the game. Strangely, i dont think the Exiles really does this, and i would personally prefer to see the Exiles split into Australia and New Zealand (allow NRL sides (including the national coach) but it is no ones fault if Australians cant be bothered sending their strongest team. I think that this would give England, France, Wales and Ireland some serious marketing clout to help develop a rep series. Who knows, it might mean that the celtics are not needed, i am not sure. It all depends on a few different things. GB is different. The advantage of this is that it helps encourage players to stick with Wales, Ireland and Scotland, imo.

I agree with your point about making money, but an international sport with only three nations has a pretty low ceiling in that regard. Again, we'll (hopefully) see a lot of interest in the World Cup, because these games are treated as a big occasion and given the respect they deserve. And as a result crowds will be good and top players will be willing to commit to lesser nations. The rest of the time, these nations are thrown on the scrapheap by people who arrogantly think that they aren't good enough to play and instead prefer to mess around with made-up teams and other stupid ideas. If we ever want to get anywhere as an international sport then this has to change.

I agree with the world cup. I really think that it can and eventually will develop into a huge money making event, much like state of origin already has. The challenge for rugby league after this is secured (hopefully next year) is to find the next self supporting event. Australia already has their origin. The Challenge for New Zealand and england is to find something similar. England so far has tried War of the Roses, Exiles and really, they seem to fail. The options for these two countries are as follows:

england -
Celtic - The celts would have an Qld origin type underdog status. If successful, the games you would think would be reasonably competitive, It would help keep players with the celt nations and therefore strengthen them, There might be enough of a traditional rivalry for sides to build on and market. The celts do actually hate england or at least they used to. I think it is worth a decent go.
Exiles - Really does seem to be failing. the exiles themselves to not really have a market to develop in (Aus and NZ couldnt care less), Hard to build marketability in England because of this, Exile players do not strengthen any nations.
World XIII - Not as far fetched as it sounds. It is similar to the Exiles concept, but it gives players from Celtic nations and France a chance at strengthening the sides and improving. It also give the chance if developed properly for games to be played in France (which could make money) and even wales and eventually scot and irish the chance to host and benefit from the game. this coudl be well worth a chance. The world XIII has a tradional place in the game to.
France - Although on paper this si the best option, playing this game regularly really does prove uncompetive and results to damage being done to the international game in England due to loss of interest and more importantly in France where the good work they have done gets shattered by constant thrashings. It is much better for france to build there team up by playing the likes of PNG, Wales, Scotland, USA etc and make a big occasion of their one game every two or three years against one of the big three.
Wales/Ireland/Scotland series (one or more) - As much as i do like this idea, i think it much better to play a rep side that gives them the added competition and make it a huge thing when England does actually play one of these. The Quad nations has sort of started this process in place and it is good. Because that chance only comes every two years. I think it is better to keep it that way, rather than to play them against England on an annual basis.
New Zealand - this is definitely well worth thought. The time zone is a bit of a problem when sides play home and away, but a there would be nothing wrong with a 3 test series played in line with state of origin, thus allowing a full strength New Zealand.
Australia- it sounds silly but if played at the same time as Origin, Australian SL players would make this a very strong side and give themselves a chance to push for Australian selection. Australia coudl easily add depth from the state cups adn still be competitive. If we ever get the origin full weekend which i think will happen very soon, if required they could even use players that didnt make the origin to strengthen the side. This is not ideal, but it might still be marketable in the UK.
Smaller nations - Wales, Ireland, Russia etc. This is doable, but it is never going to create popular high drawing games on an annual basis.

the reality is, these are the options for annual competition. England really needs to pick one and make it work. this will give funding to the game and help promote international league. New Zealand has similar challenges. They will need to choose from North island v South Island, NZ v Pacific Islands, Auckland v the rest, NZ v Pacific or other nations. I lean towards north island v South island but one of the others could also work. I do think that their world cup win has been a massive wasted opportunity. They should have played a World XIII as the world cup winners always have traditionally. They would have a better chance of winning that game than they would have of beating Australia. This would have really helped their image in the NZ Public. They should have followed it up with some games against NRL stacked Pacific Island nations and even a rep side. All of which i am sure they would have beaten as their reputations are better than their actual performance. Maybe a game or two against England, wales or ireland. I think that if done right, the Kiwis could have really developed a following as big as they have now, despite not playing Australia for a year or two. This would have meant that when they do play Australia it would be massive in NZ. As would the world cup.

 

[siv]

Players won't commit to playing for minor nations until they theose nations and teh RLIF find a way to pay for the following

- Players insurance
- air fares
- accommodation

Its embarressing for RL that any player should pay these expenses. Ven a NRL player

I have no issue in the current international elligibility rules - they just need to be enfoced

eg playing for Ireland this year means you cannot play for another nation for 2 years

If the RLIF had any balls they should not allow England to get away with this

 

[hutch]

Now your testing my memory. I think it was the 96 World cup? or around this time. though to be fair he wanted to play for tonga because australia didnt want him. From memory fate intervened and stopped him from representing Tonga due to injury. And at the same time, the ARL selected Jim Dymock who was already the Tonga captain and had played for them for several years.

It was the super league world nines where tonga wanted Tallis to play for them. This was until it was discovered that he has no links to tonga whatsoever.

 

[roughyedspud]

If the RLIF had any balls they should not allow England to get away with this

GET AWAY WITH WHAT??


McLLORUM will be playing for ireland next year cos he's not good enough for england and we don't need him..


Chris bridge & Ben harrison switch to england under the same rule that allowed hayne & jennings to switch back to australia from fiji & tonga after the last world cup...the ARL insisted on that rule...its also likely that chris bridge might be back in a ireland jersey next year anyway...


so england have'nt gotten away with anything pal....in fact the RFL have done everything possible to give the celtic nations the start they need to get on in international RL..

 

[Broncos thats my team]

If the France pro comp ever gets up then England Vs France in a 3 test series is the Obv choice, with other nations playing as the curtian raiser.

 

[deal.with.it]

Yes the ARL have been dicks, but you can't preach about the RFL and England being all that much better. They both get away with shit the RLIF shouldn't allow! And same with NZRL!

 

[roughyedspud]

the RLIF is the ARLC,NZRL & RFL......




god its like banging my head against a wall :lol:

 

[Broncos thats my team]

the RLIF is the ARLC,NZRL & RFL......




god its like banging my head against a wall :lol:

and this is the problem.

 

[roughyedspud]

exactly...

 

[deal.with.it]

Why don't you list the sitting, voting, members of the RLIF.
It might be tilted to the big 3, but there's others too.

 

[roughyedspud]

tilted..............lol


yeah like this

 

[deal.with.it]

So why don't you list them?