I'm not against the growth of international footy. But this thread is about the ARLC. I'm against the ARLC making international footy it's priority when 1st grade NRL footy is the most important kind of rugby league in this country. Australia. The country the ARLC is in charge of it.
International footy and it's growth is the job of the RLIF, not the ARLC.
On my Facebook NOONE mentioned the Australia v New Zealand test or City v country. For 10 days I didn't hear anyone speak about rugby league. Every other week there is constant footy banter because the footy people care most about is playing.
Focusing on that and maximising it is the ARLCs job.
Firstly, it's called the RLIF.ECT
I take it no-one can point out what the charter of the IRLF actually is, if so they are arguing against the ARLC making additional contributions to the international game. I have simply, and factually pointed out that there is an internationally appointed body (The IRLF) who is chartered with and responsible for the running of the game at an international level.
I have also pointed out a couple of other things. i.e., the option of giving additional nations a place on the board, and therefor having a more proactive role in the running the game internationally. Not just continuing to perpetuate the mindset of "The Aussies should be doing more for the international game".
If you cannot read or just want to continue to assume that I am against the ARLC making additional efforts to grow the international game, who am i to disagree. Carry on.
What would hold more interest for the sports fans of the USA and Russia. A Rugby League International between them 2 countries, or a game between Souths and Dragons ?
What would hold more interest for the sports fans of China and India. A Rugby League International between them countries or a game between 2 Australian states ?
What is the best way to develop Rugby League into a worldwide game. NRL clubs playing one another or Internationals between Countries ?
Firstly, it's called the RLIF.
Secondly, the ARLC is the RLIF,.
What would hold more interest for the sports fans of the USA and Russia. A Rugby League International between them 2 countries, or a game between Souths and Dragons ?
What would hold more interest for the sports fans of China and India. A Rugby League International between them countries or a game between 2 Australian states ?
What is the best way to develop Rugby League into a worldwide game. NRL clubs playing one another or Internationals between Countries ?
I agree but I did specifically say that if the ARLC chooses to continue the NRL's existing policies.
If/when the ARLC does pull in a $1 Billion+ media rights deal, if they're still paying out the chicken feed to development in the pacific region, then obviously the ARLC would not deserve a seat on the RLIF board because they would clearly not have the interest of the international game at heart.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt to see if its merely just the cashflow that causes them to sit on their hands. But as on next year, those excuses will not sit with me at all.
This. Improving stadiums in Sydney and handing out Steedens to kids in Darwin should be way way way more of a priority than improving stadiums in PNG and handing out Steedens in Japan.Most teams making losses on a yearly basis, half this country's population having no or little access to the game, the other half needing a major boost in funding, many teams playing out of substandard stadiums, not to mention expansion and increased operating costs.
Glad to see your where your priorities lie.
This. Improving stadiums in Sydney and handing out Steedens to kids in Darwin should be way way way more of a priority than improving stadiums in PNG and handing out Steedens in Japan.
And instead of the English giving their 'opinion' on the ARLC maybe they should work on their own comp. Anyone who knows anything about the ESL will tell you it is in a very poor state at the moment.
I don't think we're far away from having only one professional rugby league comp on the planet. So consolidating has to be more of a priority than putting the game on FTA in Timbuktu.
Despite little money the RFL is supporting the growth of the game in Europe in a number of ways. What does the NRL do in this region other than sign NZ juniors and give them a Kangaroo shirt?
Noone cares about international footy.
Everyone I talk to in real life is far more interested in Souths v Dragons and Melbourne v Brisbane and Parra v Dogs than bloody England v PNG or some crap like that.
There is 1 team outside of 2 states in this country. .
The priority of the ARLC should be:Club footy >>>>>>>>> international footy.
There is no such thing as true independence. As long as someone can be chosen to do a job and then fired from that job, there is no real independence.
And if anyone is going to have the power I'm glad it's the clubs.
The strength of the clubs is the most important thing. Maybe in future we won't see ridiculous scheduling like a one off test putting the whole comp on hold for a week.
It's good because no one club has too much power, they have to all pretty much agree to wield influence so that'll be a buffer against the worst decisions.
Better the clubs running the show than News.
That is the RLIF board ellected before the ARLC was formed for a start. Secondly John Grant is attending the RLIF meeting so clearly he is very much involved with it otherwise he would have no right to even be there. Without its constituent members the RLIF ceases to exist. So if the ARLC is a constituent body it is very much responsible for international RL. If you think the ARLC has no responsibility to international football you are delusional. If the clubs have any say in what goes on they will f**k IRL over. You can guarantee that. They've been doing it for years. If the ARLC fails to act independently and in the interestes of the game as a whole it will be a complete failure.