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!

Rugby Australia to target top NRL talent - Lomax case settled

marlins2.0

Juniors
Messages
344
That's what i love about Rugby Union folk, Arrogance and a reluctance to look at facts, that Area apparently are all Union Nuts and NOT turning to Rugby League because they prefer it, but because they feel abandoned, utter bollox, keep thinking you rule the world guys, maybe go back to banning people again to help.
Tana Umaga is a Leaguie at heart. Was on contract with Newcastle but got homesick, then rugby went "professional" (read - decided to pay tax).
 

Last Week

Bench
Messages
4,033
Well we are giving png 600m for rugby league so 3 countries getting 150m combined for union seems unders
The GDP of PNG is more than 3 times the GDP of Tonga, Samoa and Fiji combined.

If we're talking investment, PNG is easily the obvious choice. Particularly given their natural resources.
 

Murishido

Juniors
Messages
305
The GDP of PNG is more than 3 times the GDP of Tonga, Samoa and Fiji combined.

If we're talking investment, PNG is easily the obvious choice. Particularly given their natural resources.

I'll give benefit of the doubt on this one, there's a few issues with looking at it like that

A) gdp and aid would, if anything, be negatively correlated. Otherwise we'd just give the us money (outside of treasuries which you could argue is aid in disguise)
B) even if it weren't, 600 is 4 x 150 so that seems fine on your gdp calc (i see it as >4 times)
C) our foreign spending isn't an investment other than a social one, so that's the wrong lens to put on as we don't get a financial return. You can argue that's what you mean but then it discredits using gdp even further.
D) being resource rich and still higher poverty suggests investment outside of true infrastructure is pretty pointless
E) png was already our biggest recipient of funding pre nrl. So it's unlikely to move the dial from a strategic point of view in a conflict.
 

Last Week

Bench
Messages
4,033
I'll give benefit of the doubt on this one, there's a few issues with looking at it like that

A) gdp and aid would, if anything, be negatively correlated. Otherwise we'd just give the us money (outside of treasuries which you could argue is aid in disguise)
B) even if it weren't, 600 is 4 x 150 so that seems fine on your gdp calc (i see it as >4 times)
C) our foreign spending isn't an investment other than a social one, so that's the wrong lens to put on as we don't get a financial return. You can argue that's what you mean but then it discredits using gdp even further.
D) being resource rich and still higher poverty suggests investment outside of true infrastructure is pretty pointless
E) png was already our biggest recipient of funding pre nrl. So it's unlikely to move the dial from a strategic point of view in a conflict.

You're the one claiming that $600m for PNG is unders compared to $150m for Fiji, Tonga and Samoa.

You seem to have taken it rather personally that a fact was presented to you in your comment.
 

Latest posts

Top