What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

NZ v Poms in US

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,960
From the Denver test not origin.
So Canberra receive no insurance pay outs?

Of course the RFL and NZRL are getting pay for the Denver game, but the NRL and NRL clubs aren't despite the fact that they are expected to provide most of the players for the game.

And I highly doubt the Raiders (or anybody else for that matter) receive insurance pay outs for a player that is injured when that player isn't playing for them, and even if they were I doubt it covers their loses once you factor in things like sponsorship loss, etc. And even if they did the lost cap space for the time that a player is out is still gone and that is a factor as well.

And though injuries are part of it the clubs are being effected just by letting them play in this game, even if they go away and come back fit as a fiddle they are still missing training, they are still getting jet lag or whatever and aren't playing at their best for a while, they still aren't available to fulfill their duties at the club like media and community engagement, etc, etc.
 

Pommy

Coach
Messages
14,657
Of course the RFL and NZRL are getting pay for the Denver game, but the NRL and NRL clubs aren't despite the fact that they are expected to provide most of the players for the game.

And I highly doubt the Raiders (or anybody else for that matter) receive insurance pay outs for a player that is injured when that player isn't playing for them, and even if they were I doubt it covers their loses once you factor in things like sponsorship loss, etc. And even if they did the lost cap space for the time that a player is out is still gone and that is a factor as well.

And though injuries are part of it the clubs are being effected just by letting them play in this game, even if they go away and come back fit as a fiddle they are still missing training, they are still getting jet lag or whatever and aren't playing at their best for a while, they still aren't available to fulfill their duties at the club like media and community engagement, etc, etc.

So the RFL recieve money to develop the next Burgess, Graham etc and that’s not benefiting the NRL clubs at all?
Well in football the clubs receive insurance payouts if players are injured during international games.
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,960
Don't worry yourself about it Dane..

Worry myself about what?

So the RFL recieve money to develop the next Burgess, Graham etc and that’s not benefiting the NRL clubs at all?

The RFL don't develop shit, they just get lucky when they stumble onto something...

Basically none of the Super league clubs have juniors programs, or anything like that, and the ones that do are generally seriously underfunded, so there's basically no development involved, either a kid comes good, or they don't, but that is besides the point.

Burgess, Graham, etc, were contractors, once their contract was up they didn't owe their previous employers a thing, why you'd think that they or the NRL would owe them something I don't know...

Well in football the clubs receive insurance payouts if players are injured during international games.

RL probably isn't big enough to get that sort of treatment lol, however it's probably something that should be looked into, but even so it doesn't negate the fact that some sort of scheme for compensation should already be a thing as well, and as I said before in soccer they already have that compensation as well.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,971
The clubs don't get compensation because the international game can't afford to pay out clubs for million dollar contracts.
The international game can't afford to do anything at least in part due to the stranglehold the clubs enforce on players and available time.

Maybe if clubs put something into international development they would get something back in the long run.
 

Springs09

Juniors
Messages
1,903
BS.

Whether you like it or not RL is a business, to survive it needs to make money if it doesn't make money it dies out as a profession, its directly comparative to any other business in this regard.



The game in of it's self is not an employer, you can go pick up a footy right now and play RL, you won't see a dime for it.

Any suggestion like this is purely idealistic, and ridiculous in a real world context, frankly it's utopian.



Again this is idealistic BS.

The NRL does not get that money from "the game", they get it from people who buy the NRls' tickets and products and from TV broadcasters that buy the NRLs' product to broadcast on their channels cause it makes money for them cause it rates well and advertisers want their ads to run during shows that rate well.

If it were purely the game that brought in money then every competition would be profitable.



Josh Hodgson et.al are contractors, they don't owe anything to their old employers, and it's beside the point anyway.

And what of NZs' players basically all of them were developed on the NRL's dime, thus don't they owe the NRL their profession and therefore shouldn't play in this game using this logic?



Only if you refuse to organise compensation, and the clubs have shown time and again that they are willing to release players when they aren't in season, in other words they seem to be fine with players taking on a second job so long as it doesn't effect them.



Actually their is something in their contracts that says that they can't play for another team (including rep football) without a release from the club (unless the club is run by idiots that is), and a players will doesn't really matter, they agreed to and signed that contract.

Would you care if you had someone working for you and they were unhappy cause you wouldn't let them go in the middle of their shift to work for someone else and still expected to be payed by you during that time, yes you would care, if you were like me you would say I'm happy to let you go work for them, but your fired if you do, unless that other company was some compensating me for my loss or at least was covering my risk in that employees contract, in other words paying the wages that I owe him during the time he is working for them (unless he the employee was to wave them), and their insurance is covering that employee while he is working for them, and depending on the business I'd want to be payed for lost income for the time that employee was away and anytime that they couldn't work cause of an injury sustained while working for them.



But they should get a say when it's players (their employees) contracted to their clubs (their businesses) that are being used in the game, cause it is them that is being most affected by the game

The majority of the players in the game in Denver are contracted to NRL clubs, yet the NRL and NRL clubs won't see a dime from it even if it is successful, and their's no compensation for their loss, that is wrong and it's stupid cause if I was a rich guy looking into investing into the NRL I'd be like nah as if the NRL are willing to force me to release players to this game when it's not in my interest then what else are they willing to do that would seriously negatively effect my business?!



Can we stop with it's during a week off BS, even if it's played in a week off it's still going to effect the players time at their clubs, they are going to miss training, they are going to come back jet lagged and not able to preform at their best for a while, some will be injured, some may even be seriously injured and need time off, etc, etc.

The effects from this game aren't just going to be felt on this one week off, and even if it was it'd still be morally wrong.



Except everybody involved in an international match is compensated in soccer, all the leagues see money from their governing bodies (right up to FIFA) explicitly to compensate for this sort of stuff, that isn't the case in RL, if it was we wouldn't have a problem, and even with that compensation very, very rarely would you see a game where a competition that isn't involved at all is the source for basically all the players for a game unconnected to them to be played during their season...

So no it's not comparable at all, cause they actually have the compensation that I'm arguing for.



I already named two before, capital flight and devaluation of the competitions to the benefit of one off big time promoters who will move on from RL as soon as it doesn't make any money for them cause the sport isn't their bread and butter and they aren't reliant on it to make a living.

It doesn't matter if it is a business or not, the situation is not comparable to regular industries. Accountants aren't chosen to represent Australia in accounting against the US. And rugby league is making plenty of money and this test is making it more money as well as trying to grow its profile in the USA which could one day make it a lot more money.


The game is what makes money is the point. The clubs rarely make money they usually run at a loss and rely on money from the NRL which makes its money from the game.


All your bullshit is just a roundabout way to say the game is what makes money. The game is the product and most competitions are profitable.


NZ players were not developed by the NRL, not until they reached grade anyway. In any case, that would be the NRL's decision, not the clubs.

Oh shut the f**k up about industry comparisons already. It is not comparable it is nothing alike. If my employee said 'hey boss I've been selected to play for my country at the highest level of my sport!' I'd say f**k yes you can go.

Oh there will be effects will there? Just like there has been effects from players backing up from Origin 2 days later for the last 40 years? Oh but there is a plane ride so they'll probably die.

Your consequences are baseless assumptions.
 

Springs09

Juniors
Messages
1,903
The question isn't are they obliged to, it's should they be obliged to and under what circumstances should they be obliged to, those are two very different things.

I know they are obliged to release their plays, but under the current circumstances doing so will directly negatively effect their business's and they aren't going to get anything to cover the costs of that negative effect, that should never ever be the case if we want RL as a professional sport to do well!
What I'm questioning is whether or not under these circumstances and ones like them they should be obliged to release their players, and suggesting ways that the problems that I'm presenting could be solved and should be solved so that it's not an issue anymore.



And every other sport on the planet that I know of compensates their clubs and leagues in some way for the negative effects of internationals on their businesses, normally through grants, except RL, and yet people want to uphold that state of affairs despite the negative effects that it has.

Why the administrators struggle I don't know, it's compensation and sort is pretty basic stuff the RLIF should have figured it out years ago, why you lot struggle to understand that the NRL, NRL clubs, etc, are businesses and need to support their businesses I don't understand either....

Yes, they should be obliged to, because their shitty self-interest is not the point of the game.

Like I said, if we start that shit about 'negatively effecting their business' then we don't have rep football at all.

f**k the clubs. They run at a loss, they rely on the NRL to save them. If the NRL says release their players, they release their players. Everyone knows the NRL clubs are businesses, but we aren't so thick to think that means they need to take precedent over the highest level of football
 

flamin

Juniors
Messages
2,046
I agree with Kent that it's a stupid idea but probably for very different reasons to him...

You can't have organisations taking the employees of another organisation without their permission and using them for their will, it sets a terrible precedent.

I mean does anybody here own and/or operate a business?

What would you do if you worked in an industry where your employees or equipment can just be taken and used by a competitor (and in your busiest period) without compensation and with support of the government?

The fact that you view the RFL and NZRL as competitors to the NRL instead of parts of the same body is tragic.

Your hypothetical about competitions being gutted for internationals is unjustifiable. There is no reason to believe that promoters will have the power to strip professional competitions of their players, since that is not what is happening here. Only through cooperation between club competitions and international bodies can these events take place.

Claiming that the Test shouldn’t go ahead because players will be jet-lagged, unavailable to take part in club training and not taking part in community events for 1.5 weeks is the weakest excuse I’ve heard. Especially in comparison to what clubs give up for Origin players.

State of Origin wasn’t always a money spinner for clubs. Until recently all the direct income went straight to the NSWRL and QRL. When Origin started there was no tangible benefit to clubs whatsoever. Their star players could of been injured, and for what? A meaningless game played in the middle of the season. If that view had held sway Origin would never have got off the ground. Fortunately the game’s leaders had the balls to make some courageous decisions despite the risk of short-term pain.
 
Last edited:

Pommy

Coach
Messages
14,657
Worry myself about what?



The RFL don't develop shit, they just get lucky when they stumble onto something...

Basically none of the Super league clubs have juniors programs, or anything like that, and the ones that do are generally seriously underfunded, so there's basically no development involved, either a kid comes good, or they don't, but that is besides the point.

Burgess, Graham, etc, were contractors, once their contract was up they didn't owe their previous employers a thing, why you'd think that they or the NRL would owe them something I don't know...



RL probably isn't big enough to get that sort of treatment lol, however it's probably something that should be looked into, but even so it doesn't negate the fact that some sort of scheme for compensation should already be a thing as well, and as I said before in soccer they already have that compensation as well.

It’s not big enough to extend insurance policies they already have?
Imagine if someone was trying to grow the game.
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,960
The clubs don't get compensation because the international game can't afford to pay out clubs for million dollar contracts.
The international game can't afford to do anything at least in part due to the stranglehold the clubs enforce on players and available time.

The NRL and RFL could afford it if they wanted to cover it, they could easily afford it. Besides their are plenty of other ways of compensating the clubs other than through monetary grants, theoretically you could do cap exemptions, or just cap exemptions for juniors, being creative for a second the RFL or NRL vice versa could offer to cover SL/NRL clubs gate takings for one game so that the home team takes all the profit from the game but the other team still gets payed, etc.

Grants only came up cause soccer came up.

Maybe if clubs put something into international development they would get something back in the long run.

Maybe if it was worthwhile to them they would put something into international game... Maybe if it didn't really effect them or it effected them as little as possible they'd be right behind it...

BTW I don't accept that they don't put into international development, the Raiders for example have stuff going on in Fiji, NZ, and with the PNG Hunters, they just don't do as much international development as you'd like or how you'd like it done.
 
Last edited:

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,960
It doesn't matter if it is a business or not, the situation is not comparable to regular industries. Accountants aren't chosen to represent Australia in accounting against the US.

So what, it's still a business where everybody needs to get payed, you're really splitting hairs.
Is sport a traditional industry, no, it's an entertainment business with it's own different quirks and necessities just like the Circus or Hollywood.

You're trying to make it more than it is, a hallowed establishment that is higher than other businesses cause you can represent your country, when really it's nothing of the sort, it's just like any other business except that somewhere along line someone came up with a great gimmick to sell tickets (that's literally how modern international sport started)... Everybody is out to butter their bread.

And rugby league is making plenty of money and this test is making it more money as well as trying to grow its profile in the USA which could one day make it a lot more money.

Sure but RL isn't a monolith, just cause the RFL and NZRL are making payday doesn't mean that everybody is benefiting (which is fine), the problem comes where the RFL, NZRL, and Moore Sports are making money using assets (for lack of a better word) that aren't theirs to use at the expense of the people that they are contractually bound too.

The game is what makes money is the point. The clubs rarely make money they usually run at a loss and rely on money from the NRL which makes its money from the game.

All your bullshit is just a roundabout way to say the game is what makes money. The game is the product and most competitions are profitable.

Ah huh, and if you don't have a mechanism to get the game (the product) to the consumer then it doesn't matter how much money it'd theoretically make. The clubs are an integral part of that mechanism, if they don't make money then the game doesn't make money either.

If you really think that the game in of it's self is profitable then why don't you rent out a stadium or a field and try to sell tickets to game against some of your mates...


NZ players were not developed by the NRL, not until they reached grade anyway. In any case, that would be the NRL's decision, not the clubs.

You do realise that the NRL funds the NZRLs' existence right?

Oh shut the f**k up about industry comparisons already. It is not comparable it is nothing alike. If my employee said 'hey boss I've been selected to play for my country at the highest level of my sport!' I'd say f**k yes you can go.

No offence but I highly, highly doubt you run a business... If you do you are just being obtuse with your line of qestioning...

And the above hypothetical isn't analogous to what's happening to the NRL clubs in this case...

It'd be more like if your employee said 'hey boss I've been offered a contract to work for Andrew down the street, are you cool if I work six hours here and two there each day? I still want my full time wages though'.

Oh there will be effects will there? Just like there has been effects from players backing up from Origin 2 days later for the last 40 years? Oh but there is a plane ride so they'll probably die.

Yep just like those effects from SOO, only difference is that the clubs are compensated for SOO, they won't be for this game in Denver, and that is where the problem lies.

Your consequences are baseless assumptions.

Capital Flight is a baseless assumption! You need to look through history to see what happens when governments or governing bodies take things they aren't entitled too! Start with Venezuelas' current predicament, lol.

And Devaluing the product is a baseless assumption! Lol, look at what SOO does to the NRL for half the season...
 
Last edited:

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,960
The fact that you view the RFL and NZRL as competitors to the NRL instead of parts of the same body is tragic.

The fact that you don't realise that they are competitors in the RL market I simply don't understand... All three are competing for eyes in the RL market, you also realise that just cause they are competitors doesn't mean that they can't work together for mutual gain right?

Your hypothetical about competitions being gutted for internationals is unjustifiable. There is no reason to believe that promoters will have the power to strip professional competitions of their players, since that is not what is happening here. Only through cooperation between club competitions and international bodies can these events take place.

That is literally exactly what is happening here!

There is no cooperation between the club and competition level, the NRL is forcing the clubs to release players through threat of sanction cause as soon as the game was announced the clubs were already against releasing there players for it!

That is literally clubs and by extension a comp, being gutted for an international, it is literally a promoter having the power to strip a professional clubs of their players against their will and without anything in return!

Any way you slice it that is literally what is happening in this case!


Claiming that the Test shouldn’t go ahead because players will be jet-lagged, unavailable to take part in club training and not taking part in community events for 1.5 weeks is the weakest excuse I’ve heard. Especially in comparison to what clubs give up for Origin players.

Never said it shouldn't go ahead, in fact I want it to go ahead, I only said that it shouldn't go ahead the way that it is being handled, those are two very different things.

And the argument has got very little to with the jet lag and training, and a lot to do with the effect of the way that the game is being handled and the precedent that it sets for the future... If things like this become a regular arrangement it's only a matter of time before it turns around and bites everyone in the arse...

State of Origin wasn’t always a money spinner for clubs. Until recently all the direct income went straight to the NSWRL and QRL. When Origin started there was no tangible benefit to clubs whatsoever. Their star players could of been injured, and for what? A meaningless game played in the middle of the season. If that view had held sway Origin would never have got off the ground. Fortunately the game’s leaders had the balls to make some courageous decisions despite the risk of short-term pain.

Never said that SOO was always a money maker, in fact this whole paragraph is just a giant straw man of my argument, or at least completely misses the point of my argument, and honestly I can't be bothered with it as it's a complete digression away from the point that I'm at least trying to make.
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,960
It’s not big enough to extend insurance policies they already have?

You know how it is only rich and famous people that get stuff for free, and they get sweeter deals as well even though they can afford it and don't really need it, well the same is true for famous companies and it's quite possible that big soccer clubs in the EPL for example can get that sort of insurance deal cause the insurance company wants to seal the deal for the publicity alone, but to the average punter and a company with a significantly smaller name that deal isn't on the table or is intentionally placed outside of their reach.

Not saying that it is necessarily the case in this case, but insurance companies are notorious for this kind of thing.

Imagine if someone was trying to grow the game.

Not sure what this is referring too.
 

flamin

Juniors
Messages
2,046
Never said that SOO was always a money maker, in fact this whole paragraph is just a giant straw man of my argument, or at least completely misses the point of my argument, and honestly I can't be bothered with it as it's a complete digression away from the point that I'm at least trying to make.

No I’m making my point, not quoting yours.

The argument that clubs get nothing out of this can apply equally to State of Origin when it first started. Fortunately that argument did not stop Origin being established and decades later the clubs indirectly benefit despite the huge drain it puts on them.

There a lots of things clubs put up with because the overall benefit to the game is worth the short-term sacrifice. When the game benefits, the clubs ultimately will to.

If the 2025 RLWC is remotely successful, the potential is there for the NRL and smart NRL clubs to be significantly better off than they are now, since a whole new market will have been created.

I’m a Dragons fan. If Widdop receives a season-ending injury I will still believe the risk is worth it.
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,960
No I’m making my point, not quoting yours.

My point in saying that is that nothing you are saying contradicts anything that I have said before (in fact I agree with most of it), you think you are arguing against my points but you're not, you're going off on tangents that are inconsequential to my arguments cause you think that I'm against the idea of playing the Denver test and playing test during the season in general, I'm not against these things, in fact I support them, I think the Denver game is fantastic, what I'm not happy with is the way that it has been organised and the way that the clubs have been treated in it's organisation.

All I'm doing is pointing out how things could be done better, no, how things should be done better, so that the clubs are actually on board with mid-season tests and mid-season test have as little effect on them as possible, which would be a much better outcome then what we have right now where the clubs are fighting against internationals tooth and nail.
 
Last edited:

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,960
The England v nz game...it's none of Australia's business and the your clubs have been warned about not releasing players..

It is "Australias" business, the RFL, NZRL, and Moore sport made it "Australias" business as soon as they decided to pick teams that were made mostly of players contracted to Australian clubs or playing in an Australian competition.

It's happening so quit ya whinging lol

Pointing out potentially massive screw ups before they fester into something serious is whinging now?!

Do you know what capital flight is? If not look it up and find out what it is, how it happens, and why it happens, cause if the way that the Denver game is being handled becomes standard and common place this has the potential to build into a classic case for capital flight for the competitions, and trust me we really don't want that...
 
Messages
2,839
It is "Australias" business, the RFL, NZRL, and Moore sport made it "Australias" business as soon as they decided to pick teams that were made mostly of players contracted to Australian clubs or playing in an Australian competition.

Teams havent been selected yet matey.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,971
It is "Australias" business, the RFL, NZRL, and Moore sport made it "Australias" business as soon as they decided to pick teams that were made mostly of players contracted to Australian clubs or playing in an Australian competition.

Lol imagine actually thinking that NZ and England shouldn't be allowed to play in a designated international window that the NRL helped introduce coz NRL clubs say no.

Maybe the NRL really did think that if they introduced an international window, no one would do anything beyond Campbeltown.
 
Top