NZ v Poms in US

[siv]

At international level players are not contracted to nations

They designate which nations they qualify for

National bodies can then select those players based upon RLIF guidelines

If a player chooses to not accept that national selection honor other than through injury or off field commuitmenrs eg job - there are guidelines on how such matters are addressed at club level

Of course a player can retire from international RL

or if he has a multi-country heritage option, he can choose one nation over another

 

[adamkungl]

Jesus Christ, this theme seems to keep coming up and frankly it's just stupid, just very, very stupid.

The NZRL and RFL do not own the every English and Kiwi player, the players aren't slaves to their nations sporting organisations, nor should they be for obvious reasons, that'd be a bad result for everyone involved, and it's not exploitation if the players choose to sign to NRL clubs instead of stay in England or NZ, unless of course they have been coerced into signing or forced to sign.

The Players are contractors, they don't owe anything to their prior employees once their contracts expire.

No one said anything about ownership ffs, and it's a stretch for you to be throwing out claims of anything being very, very stupid when you continue to compare representative level sport to standard business.

Rugby League is a game with rules that do not apply to the local paper company. One of the fundamental rules that separate sport from business is that the nations developing the players do so with the expectation that those players will be available to represent said national team, if not necessarily end up in their professional league.
England develops Rugby League players through their systems, with the expectation that they will be available to represent England if required. It's in the rules of the sport that they are required to do so if called upon. They aren't owned, nor are they slaves. They choose to participate in a sport and this is one of the requirements of playing that sport.

Australia comes along with a richer competition. So rich that it attracts players from other competitions. Which is fine. Those competitions lose some quality, but they gain international exposure and a higher standard for their players.
But that's all for nothing if those players aren't available to actually play for their nations. If Australian clubs block England players from representing on a week specifically designated for international representation, then what do England get out of being a feeder competition for the NRL (if current financial trends continue)? Sweet f**k all. The English professional league deteriorates, without the national team boosting interest, because the national team is now subservient to Australian clubs. Ultimately both club comp and national team decline to the point of irrelevance.
Which results in the NRL Clubs then having less top talent to choose from, and the Kangaroos having 1 less worthwhile opponent to play against (out of a pool of 2).

Well done NRL. Congratulations on being the biggest fish in a puddle. But you see the NRL as in competition rather than partnership with other Rugby League competitions, so I suppose that's a good result.

 

[Pommy]

Jesus Christ, this theme seems to keep coming up and frankly it's just stupid, just very, very stupid.

The NZRL and RFL do not own the every English and Kiwi player, the players aren't slaves to their nations sporting organisations, nor should they be for obvious reasons, that'd be a bad result for everyone involved, and it's not exploitation if the players choose to sign to NRL clubs instead of stay in England or NZ, unless of course they have been coerced into signing or forced to sign.

The Players are contractors, they don't owe anything to their prior employees once their contracts expire.

and where in their contracts does it say teams should be compensated for playing internationals?
Seems like you are just making up the rules as you go along.

 

[adamkungl]

and where in their contracts does it say teams should be compensated for playing internationals?
Seems like you are just making up the rules as you go along.

Yep. Going on about contracts and morals, when every contract in the game is superseded by the rules of the game itself.

 

[batley]

Listening to you GD reminds me Parksider on Total League.Same kind of negativity, could be one and the same.

 

[Springs09]

Cause they benefit from them (SOO) or they aren't usually directly affected by them to any great degree (tests in the off season) so they don't mind, that is not the case with this Denver game or other mid season internationals in general, at least not the ones that the Kangaroos aren't participating in that is.

Origin possibly directly cost the Cowboys a premiership shot last year. Can't have a much greater cost when it comes to club football.

Why isn't anyone blowing up about Samoa v Tonga or PNG v Lebanon?

 

[Burns]

It’s being played in Campbelltown and will be watched by a niche audience in front of an average crowd. Nobody cares about it

 

[Springs09]

It’s being played in Campbelltown and will be watched by a niche audience in front of an average crowd. Nobody cares about it

That wasn't the point. Dane is going on about medical concerns for Eng v NZ and how clubs should be compensated etc. but no one brings up how the Pacific Tests have been doing the same thing for years minus being played in Denver.

And 'nobody cares about it' LOL, obviously you haven't met too many Tongans.

 

[Burns]

It was tongue in check with the perspective of the NRL and their view.

On a note, the Pacific could buy some tickets to the game. If it had sold out by now, could have changed venue etc

 

[The Great Dane]

That wasn't the point. Dane is going on about medical concerns for Eng v NZ and how clubs should be compensated etc. but no one brings up how the Pacific Tests have been doing the same thing for years minus being played in Denver.

And 'nobody cares about it' LOL, obviously you haven't met too many Tongans.

The medical concerns are completely redundant to the point it's self... Even if we disregard the clubs medical concerns (which I'm fine with, as FYI in this case I don't believe their concerns for a second either) the point still stands.

Look I can't be bothered arguing anymore, so I'm just going to clarify my positions, since so many people failed to understand them or intentionally misinterpreted them and have twisted my words into a ton of things that I haven't said...

Firstly I am not against internationals, or even mid-season internationals, I support both, I'm not even against the Denver test, I'm happy for it to go ahead and hope it succeeds, I understand what the RLIF rules are about players having to be released for tests, I support those rules as well (though honestly I don't think that the RLIF has the power to enforce any of their rules anyway, but that's an aside).

My only contention is that this test (and others planned for the future) are being held in a way that it directly negatively affects organisations financially, and to a much lesser degree in my concerns performance wise, that should have nothing to do with it and without compensation for the impact on their businesses.
So, to boil it down it's my opinion is that the clubs shouldn't be expected to pay (through lost income, etc) for internationals that don't include their nation meaning that they'll see no return for that investment into the international, and not just NRL clubs but all clubs, and that some form of scheme to compensate them when affected should be organised to pay for that loss, and that compensation doesn't necessarily have to be financial.

Though honestly I wouldn't really know what most of you opinions on that point are cause most of you have failed to address the above point it's self and have attacked tangential ones that I haven't really touched on or don't really care about, and often I agree with you on your criticisms of those points, I think where I differ with you lot is that you don't agree with me that unconnected clubs shouldn't be expected to carry some of the brunt of the costs of these events and that it's fine for them to be expected to carry some costs due to an event that they should have nothing to do with and stand to receive no tangible benefits from, and if you believe that then fine I guess, but I would implore you to look up what capital flight is and to learn how and why it happens and what it's effects are.

 

[Pommy]

Firstly I am not against internationals, or even mid-season internationals, I support both, I'm not even against the Denver test, I'm happy for it to go ahead and hope it succeeds, I understand what the RLIF rules are about players having to be released for tests, I support those rules as well (though honestly I don't think that the RLIF has the power to enforce any of their rules anyway, but that's an aside).

My only contention is that this test (and others planned for the future) are being held in a way that it directly negatively affects organisations financially, and to a much lesser degree in my concerns performance wise, that should have nothing to do with it and without compensation for the impact on their businesses.
So, to boil it down it's my opinion is that the clubs shouldn't be expected to pay (through lost income, etc) for internationals that don't include their nation meaning that they'll see no return for that investment into the international, and not just NRL clubs but all clubs, and that some form of scheme to compensate them when affected should be organised to pay for that loss, and that compensation doesn't necessarily have to be financial.

Though honestly I wouldn't really know what most of you opinions on that point are cause most of you have failed to address the above point it's self and have attacked tangential ones that I haven't really touched on or don't really care about, and often I agree with you on your criticisms of those points, I think where I differ with you lot is that you don't agree with me that unconnected clubs shouldn't be expected to carry some of the brunt of the costs of these events and that it's fine for them to be expected to carry some costs due to an event that they should have nothing to do with and stand to receive no tangible benefits from, and if you believe that then fine I guess, but I would implore you to look up what capital flight is and to learn how and why it happens and what it's effects are.

Again the RFL and NZRL raising funds to develop more talent does give them a return on their investment. You have just decided that’s not the case.

 

[The Great Dane]

Again the RFL and NZRL raising funds to develop more talent does give them a return on their investment. You have just decided that’s not the case.

Firstly, Bull f##king shit will a cent of the money from this go into development funds for juniors...

Secondly, the NRL and clubs already 'pay' heaps for junior development in the other nations in question, as they basically prop up RL in NZ and the PI's financially (especially their junior development), and for every Pom they take from SL they replace them with what 3-4 Aussie players, maybe even more... And if the other nations want payment for development services this isn't the way to go about it (it's also a very bad idea for a bunch of reasons but that is an aside).

Also just cause I'm curious, what of all the players developed in Australia? Should the NZRL, RFL, and the second tier nations, be paying the NRL for all the players they develop for them? Cause if so all of them owe the NRL a hell of a lot more then the NRL owes them, so do you really want to go down that route cause it only leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, or in some cases the poor getting broke, like Fiji, they'd be f##ked if the NRL started charging them for player development...

Anyway i couldn't let that one go.

 

[Pommy]

Firstly, Bull f##king shit will a cent of the money from this go into development funds for juniors...

Secondly, the NRL and clubs already 'pay' heaps for junior development in the other nations in question, as they basically prop up RL in NZ and the PI's financially (especially their junior development), and for every Pom they take from SL they replace them with what 3-4 Aussie players, maybe even more... And if the other nations want payment for development services this isn't the way to go about it (it's also a very bad idea for a bunch of reasons but that is an aside).

Also just cause I'm curious, what of all the players developed in Australia? Should the NZRL, RFL, and the second tier nations, be paying the NRL for all the players they develop for them? Cause if so all of them owe the NRL a hell of a lot more then the NRL owes them, so do you really want to go down that route cause it only leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, or in some cases the poor getting broke, like Fiji, they'd be f##ked if the NRL started charging them for player development...

Anyway i couldn't let that one go.

So the RFL doesnt invest money in juniors, interesting.

I’m not saying anyone should be paying anything for players, but if Australia wants to call up Ben Barba for a game in Denver I would be totally adamant that saint helens shouldn’t prevent t from happening.

 

[The Great Dane]

So the RFL doesnt invest money in juniors, interesting.

Never said that...

I’m not saying anyone should be paying anything for players, but if Australia wants to call up Ben Barba for a game in Denver I would be totally adamant that saint helens shouldn’t prevent t from happening.

And I'd be totally adamant that if the NRL calling up Barba effects St. Helens business that they should be compensated for that negative effect on their business.

It's not St. Helens job to subsidise the Kangaroos or internationals not involving England, and nor should they be forced too.

 

[Pommy]

Never said that...



And I'd be totally adamant that if the NRL calling up Barba effects St. Helens business that they should be compensated for that negative effect on their business.

It's not St. Helens job to subsidise the Kangaroos or internationals not involving the England's existence, and nor should they be forced too.

So where are the RFL going to spend this money?

Only it is, that’s the rules the buisness operates under.

 

[The Great Dane]

So where are the RFL going to spend this money?

Who knows, but there's noway that they'll just throw it all lump sum into juniors and/or grassroots, and acting like they will or even like this game will directly effect juniors or the grassroots in England is just disingenuous, especially considering that the SL clubs basically control SL and the RFL now, I mean they want to reduce funding to the League One clubs for godsake...

Only it is, that’s the rules the buisness operates under.

No it's not, the RLIF rules say nothing about clubs shouldering the cost of international events, only that they must release players for international events... There's no reason why they couldn't release players for this game without it significantly effecting their businesses if it was well organised.

 

[Pommy]

Who knows, but there's noway that they'll just throw it all lump sum into juniors and/or grassroots, and acting like they will or even like this game will directly effect juniors or the grassroots in England is just disingenuous, especially considering that the SL clubs basically control SL and the RFL now, I mean they want to reduce funding to the League One clubs for godsake...



No it's not, the RLIF rules say nothing about clubs shouldering the cost of international events, only that they must release players for international events... There's no reason why they couldn't release players for this game without it significantly effecting their businesses if it was well organised.

Who said anything about it all being spent on development? You said not one cent will be spent on it which I would say is very disingenuous.

I don’t believe there are any up front costs to shoulder. In fact it could end up that there are no costs. All the costs you are talking about are the same costs they could incur if a player fell
down the stairs.
I will tell you what Souths will incurr costs if they don’t release the burgess brothers, they will have my season ticket sent back to them and I won’t spend another cent.

 

[Burns]

RLPA not going to endorse the match Daily Telegraph reporting. Do they speak for Graham, Widdop, Burgess and Johnson (even Bennet?)

Time for the players to come out and demand to play. We need Fifita/JT levels of action.

Oh, and where is Cameron Smith and Mal Meninga now?

 

[Coastbloke]

The silence from the RLIF is deafening. .

 

[adamkungl]

RLPA not going to endorse the match Daily Telegraph reporting. Do they speak for Graham, Widdop, Burgess and Johnson (even Bennet?)

Time for the players to come out and demand to play. We need Fifita/JT levels of action.

Oh, and where is Cameron Smith and Mal Meninga now?

Just waiting for them to officially make their statement.
Then it's NRL boycott time.