M
Marcus
Guest
Something to think about.....
The war between RU and RL has been going on since the Northern Football Union (later known as RL) broke away from the Rugby Football Union. This repercussions of this event caused many in the RFU not to trust those from the NFU. After all, this type of actionwas thought of asmutiny, and thus resulted in both codes hating one another.
The NFU broke away so that it could create a professional competition which entitled payments to its players. This was not allowed under the RFU. What the NFU did (professionalism), went against the ethos of what Rugby Football stood for - Amateurism. Playing the game for love and not money.
It is no doubt that the NFU comprised of many working class people. While the RFU comprised many of middle class people. This division in class overall contributed to the bickering that still is evident today. Back then RU people hated RL people, and RL people hated RU people. People that were brought up on RL were taught to hate those in RU, and the same applied to RU.When RU was amateur, RL went after its top players. Call it whatever you like, this type of action certainly infuriated people in RU. This then resulted in the RFU banning any return from those from RU that went to RL. People in RU would call these kinds of actions a "sell-out" to the enemy. When RL lured RU's top players, it was not only a way for RL to get talent players. But it also provided RL the opportunity to give RU the finger - metaphorically speaking. After all RU was its enemy, and there was nothing RL liked doing better than luring players away from RU.
In all the years that RU was amateur, RL always had an upper hand on its parent. RL's attractiveness was that it paid its players to play. This was always RL's advantage, and had nothing to do with their game being better. RL's financial incentives was highly tempting for the amateur RU player. And so RU needed something more than just instil amateur values, if its own game was to survive.
Enter into the early 80's. RU was stuggling, and the game was nearly on its feet. RL was luring away all the big names in RU, and the people associated with the game were afraid that RU was going to be non-existent in 10-20 years. Some time around this period, RU bodies in the southern hemisphere proposed that RU should hold a Rugby World Cup. It was felt that by holding a WC, it would be just enough to reduce the flood of RU players to RL to just a trickle/stream. At first the powers of RU were hesitate because they thought it would then lead on to professionalism (which would later be the case), but then agreed after further convincing of the SH unions.
And so the first RWC was held in NZ/Aus in 1987. It turned out to be a major success. Interest in RU was felt everywhere. The RWC's 91 and 95, saw RU soar in popularity and world wide appeal. The talent that was in each nation was showcased to the world. It also provide RL the opportunity to scout many talented players. The RWC was the pinnicle of RU. It also provided RU to show how RU was a superior game than RL. After all, RU's popularity was that it was played around the globe. While RL was confined to Aus/NZ/Eng.
Near the end of 1995 after the world cup, RU turned professional. The opportunity to pay its players was there. This turn would see the future of RU secure. No longer can RL lure RU's top players without a fight.
Professionalism in RU has also seen both RU and RL hot up in the code of wars. Now that RU was able to pay its players, it would also mean that RL's advantage which was its financial incentives, could no longer stand as a valid argument for RU players to switch codes.
And so lead to the debate. Which Rugby code is the better of the two?
So now we are at year 2001. RU is in a great financial position, but its offspring RL is not in good financial shape. Of the 90 odd years or so that RL lured RU's top players away from the game, it was now RU's turn to do the same. So far, talent such as Sailor, Rogers, Robinson and Paul have been big scalps for RU because all are top representitive players for Australia, England, and NZ respectively. A huge loss to say the least, and very damaging to a sport. Just imagine if Australia, England and NZ lost talent such as Larkham, George Smith, Lomu, and Jonny Wilkinson to RL. The effects of this would be felt tremendously, and surely get a sporting body worried.
If RL is the greatest sport, why are such top calibre players going to RU? This is a question that has to be asked. Is RL the best sport in the world? When RU was amateur, it used to say that players that went on to play RL, did it for the money. But those in RL claimed they did it more than just for the money. They would say they did it because RL had a better game.
Now than RU has some of RL's best players. Many people in RL say they are doing it for just the money. RU people say otherwise, and that players are doing it because RU has a better game and plus it has a 'real' international following.
The globe game of RU (115+ countries and growing) is its biggest attractive. Its at this international arena that will forever secure RU's future. Just look at the soccer. Internationally the game is a financial windfall. The financial capacity of RWC has grown in huge porportions. Although not at the same level as the soccer WC, the growth potential in RU is more massive than soccer. It is this type of financial security that will make RU more attractive than RL.
Forget aboutwhich game is better cause none of that matters. Its all about the money. There is no such thing as loyalty when there is money involved.
At the moment RU has passed RL with regard to the amount of money that each code embodies. Because RU is a global game, its ability to sell its product outstretches that of RL. For example the NRL can sell its game in the UK and NZ, because thats were RL is mainly played. The amount of money generated from broadcasting rights will be pretty good in those countries. For countries outside the UK and NZ, the NRL would hardly be worth buying, because where is the viewer base. Sure it may be bought but don't expect it to get millions of dollars cause it won't. RU on the other hand can sell its game to UK, NZ, Fra, Italy, Spain, US, Canada, Argentina, SA, Japan, HK, and the list goes on. The more the game is liked in a country, the better it sells. And RU sells really well in those countries.
Expect in 5-10 years time for RU players to be earning as twice as much as RL players. All indications point to this happening. RU's dominate financial ability will ultimately result in RL being overshadowed by RU.
Of course RL will still exist in Australia and England, but RL will not have a financial pull. Expect 2-3 of RL's top players switching over to RU every year for another 10 yrs. This is inevitable. RL players will find $$$ too tempting.
With RU now taking some of RL's top scalps, it not only beefs up RU, but more importantly it will provide those in RU to get the last laugh over RL - its age old enemy.
-------------------------------
Guys, this post is not meant to insult anyone what so ever, or say which game it better. But all I what is to get you think about the matter.
Does this reveal any truth? The problem of RU vs RL has nothing to do which has a better game. But has everything to do with money as well as age old rivalry.
The war between RU and RL has been going on since the Northern Football Union (later known as RL) broke away from the Rugby Football Union. This repercussions of this event caused many in the RFU not to trust those from the NFU. After all, this type of actionwas thought of asmutiny, and thus resulted in both codes hating one another.
The NFU broke away so that it could create a professional competition which entitled payments to its players. This was not allowed under the RFU. What the NFU did (professionalism), went against the ethos of what Rugby Football stood for - Amateurism. Playing the game for love and not money.
It is no doubt that the NFU comprised of many working class people. While the RFU comprised many of middle class people. This division in class overall contributed to the bickering that still is evident today. Back then RU people hated RL people, and RL people hated RU people. People that were brought up on RL were taught to hate those in RU, and the same applied to RU.When RU was amateur, RL went after its top players. Call it whatever you like, this type of action certainly infuriated people in RU. This then resulted in the RFU banning any return from those from RU that went to RL. People in RU would call these kinds of actions a "sell-out" to the enemy. When RL lured RU's top players, it was not only a way for RL to get talent players. But it also provided RL the opportunity to give RU the finger - metaphorically speaking. After all RU was its enemy, and there was nothing RL liked doing better than luring players away from RU.
In all the years that RU was amateur, RL always had an upper hand on its parent. RL's attractiveness was that it paid its players to play. This was always RL's advantage, and had nothing to do with their game being better. RL's financial incentives was highly tempting for the amateur RU player. And so RU needed something more than just instil amateur values, if its own game was to survive.
Enter into the early 80's. RU was stuggling, and the game was nearly on its feet. RL was luring away all the big names in RU, and the people associated with the game were afraid that RU was going to be non-existent in 10-20 years. Some time around this period, RU bodies in the southern hemisphere proposed that RU should hold a Rugby World Cup. It was felt that by holding a WC, it would be just enough to reduce the flood of RU players to RL to just a trickle/stream. At first the powers of RU were hesitate because they thought it would then lead on to professionalism (which would later be the case), but then agreed after further convincing of the SH unions.
And so the first RWC was held in NZ/Aus in 1987. It turned out to be a major success. Interest in RU was felt everywhere. The RWC's 91 and 95, saw RU soar in popularity and world wide appeal. The talent that was in each nation was showcased to the world. It also provide RL the opportunity to scout many talented players. The RWC was the pinnicle of RU. It also provided RU to show how RU was a superior game than RL. After all, RU's popularity was that it was played around the globe. While RL was confined to Aus/NZ/Eng.
Near the end of 1995 after the world cup, RU turned professional. The opportunity to pay its players was there. This turn would see the future of RU secure. No longer can RL lure RU's top players without a fight.
Professionalism in RU has also seen both RU and RL hot up in the code of wars. Now that RU was able to pay its players, it would also mean that RL's advantage which was its financial incentives, could no longer stand as a valid argument for RU players to switch codes.
And so lead to the debate. Which Rugby code is the better of the two?
So now we are at year 2001. RU is in a great financial position, but its offspring RL is not in good financial shape. Of the 90 odd years or so that RL lured RU's top players away from the game, it was now RU's turn to do the same. So far, talent such as Sailor, Rogers, Robinson and Paul have been big scalps for RU because all are top representitive players for Australia, England, and NZ respectively. A huge loss to say the least, and very damaging to a sport. Just imagine if Australia, England and NZ lost talent such as Larkham, George Smith, Lomu, and Jonny Wilkinson to RL. The effects of this would be felt tremendously, and surely get a sporting body worried.
If RL is the greatest sport, why are such top calibre players going to RU? This is a question that has to be asked. Is RL the best sport in the world? When RU was amateur, it used to say that players that went on to play RL, did it for the money. But those in RL claimed they did it more than just for the money. They would say they did it because RL had a better game.
Now than RU has some of RL's best players. Many people in RL say they are doing it for just the money. RU people say otherwise, and that players are doing it because RU has a better game and plus it has a 'real' international following.
The globe game of RU (115+ countries and growing) is its biggest attractive. Its at this international arena that will forever secure RU's future. Just look at the soccer. Internationally the game is a financial windfall. The financial capacity of RWC has grown in huge porportions. Although not at the same level as the soccer WC, the growth potential in RU is more massive than soccer. It is this type of financial security that will make RU more attractive than RL.
Forget aboutwhich game is better cause none of that matters. Its all about the money. There is no such thing as loyalty when there is money involved.
At the moment RU has passed RL with regard to the amount of money that each code embodies. Because RU is a global game, its ability to sell its product outstretches that of RL. For example the NRL can sell its game in the UK and NZ, because thats were RL is mainly played. The amount of money generated from broadcasting rights will be pretty good in those countries. For countries outside the UK and NZ, the NRL would hardly be worth buying, because where is the viewer base. Sure it may be bought but don't expect it to get millions of dollars cause it won't. RU on the other hand can sell its game to UK, NZ, Fra, Italy, Spain, US, Canada, Argentina, SA, Japan, HK, and the list goes on. The more the game is liked in a country, the better it sells. And RU sells really well in those countries.
Expect in 5-10 years time for RU players to be earning as twice as much as RL players. All indications point to this happening. RU's dominate financial ability will ultimately result in RL being overshadowed by RU.
Of course RL will still exist in Australia and England, but RL will not have a financial pull. Expect 2-3 of RL's top players switching over to RU every year for another 10 yrs. This is inevitable. RL players will find $$$ too tempting.
With RU now taking some of RL's top scalps, it not only beefs up RU, but more importantly it will provide those in RU to get the last laugh over RL - its age old enemy.
-------------------------------
Guys, this post is not meant to insult anyone what so ever, or say which game it better. But all I what is to get you think about the matter.
Does this reveal any truth? The problem of RU vs RL has nothing to do which has a better game. But has everything to do with money as well as age old rivalry.
</span> <span></span> <span>The war between RU and RL has been going on since the Northern Football Union (later known as RL) broke away from the Rugby Football Union. This repercussions of this event caused many in the RFU not to trust those from the NFU. After all, this type of actionwas thought of asmutiny, and thus resulted in both codes hating one another</span><span>.</span><span></span> <span></span> <span>So far so good â but in the context of the time it was seen far more than a âmutinyâ within a sportâ¦â¦.it is fair to say the during a time when the writings of Marx were gaining popularity it was seen as a direct attack on the social status quo.</span><span></span> <span></span> <span>It was also not a unique sporting event, athletics and rowing were also undergoing similar problems.</span> <span></span> <span>The NFU broke away so that it could create a professional competition which entitled payments to its players. This was not allowed under the RFU. What the NFU did (professionalism), went against the ethos of what Rugby Football stood for - Amateurism. Playing the game for love and not money.</span><span></span> <span></span> <span>Here I begin to disagree.<span> </span>On several points.</span><span></span> <span></span> <span>1.<span> </span></span><span>The NU was not set up as a pro competition.<span> </span>In fact it wasnât even intended to be separate.<span> </span>The origional concept was to have a league structure within the control of the RFU.<span> </span>It was the RFU who forced the break of the clubs.</span><span></span> <span></span> <span>2.<span> </span></span><span>The origional payments were bona fide broken time payments (these were much less than the âlegitamate expensesâ rife in RU clubs at the timeâ¦â¦.more about those in a moment).</span><span></span> <span></span> <span>The Origional founders of the NU were as anti-professional as any RFU administrator.<span> </span>Even when wages were legitimised it was a by-law that any player also had to have a full time job â as it was thought to be âabhorent that any man should earn his living from footballâ.</span><span></span> <span></span> <span>3.</span><span> The RFU didnât have a policy on professionalism until the 1890s.<span> </span>Expenses for âgentlemenâ were the norm â often these were for several pounds a match.<span> </span>These expenses payments were not restricted to northern clubs â and continued after the 1895 split</span><span>.</span> <span></span> <span>The match payment that the NU brought in in 1895 was 6 shillings a match.<span> </span>The formation of the NU was NOT about the simple act of receiving cash to play football.</span><span></span> <span>4.</span><span> When the RFU brought in itsâ by-laws on professionalism it was made clear that this would preclude the participation of working men.<span> </span>The response?<span> </span>âIf a man cannot afford to play footabll then he shouldnât play at allâ<span> </span>(Arthur Budd â RFU President).</span><span></span> <span></span> <span>5.</span><span> Amateurism is NOT a question of earning money, nor is it a moralistic, idealist, crusade<span> </span>â the by-laws of âamateur clubs state that an amateur cannnot be âan artisan, mechanic or Labourerâ.</span><span></span> <span></span> <span>âAmateurism was a hypocritical fraud.<span> </span>Amateurism was written into the legislative body of British sport by the moneyed classes in order to keep out the lower orders.<span> </span>Amateurism wasâ¦â¦nothing more than a crude exclusive deviceâ.</span><span></span> <span>(Roger Hutchinson, âEmpire Games â the British Invention<span> </span>of Twentieth Century Sportâ)</span><span></span> <span></span> <span>This is how WG Grace could be considered an âamateurâ whilst receiving âexpensesâ that would be the equivalent of £30,000 in todayâs money!</span> <span></span> <span>It is no doubt that the NFU comprised of many working class people. While the RFU comprised many of middle class people. This division in class overall contributed to the bickering that still is evident today. Back then RU people hated RL people, and RL people hated RU people. People that were brought up on RL were taught to hate those in RU, and the same applied to RU.When RU was amateur, RL went after its top players. Call it whatever you like, this type of action certainly infuriated people in RU. This then resulted in the RFU banning any return from those from RU that went to RL. People in RU would call these kinds of actions a "sell-out" to the enemy. When RL lured RU's top players, it was not only a way for RL to get talent players. But it also provided RL the opportunity to give RU the finger - metaphorically speaking. After all RU was its enemy, and there was nothing RL liked doing better than luring players away from RU.</span><span></span> <span></span> <span>1.</span><span> I think the class distinctions between the organisations â on broad lines â is without doubt.<span> </span>However, as Iâve shown, this was on the terms that the RFU had chosen.</span><span></span> <span></span> <span>2.</span><span> Those players that did go to RL were, without exception, working class men who had no option other that to seek employment where they could.<span> </span>None of the players was ever signed as a full time pro â they still had to work while they played and trained.<span> </span>These working men however had no access to the world of âexpensesâ and other sundry benefits that a top RU player (with the right conections)could enjoy.</span><span></span> <span></span> <span>3.</span><span> The âenjoymentâ of RL in signing players is a tough one to comment on.<span> </span>No-one actually knows what people were thinkingâ¦â¦..</span><span>It is however, telling that the RFL at no time ever sanctioned the signing of RU players â and often when clubs sought out players from the outside it was directly AGAINST the wishes of the ruling body.</span><span></span> <span></span> <span>In all the years that RU was amateur, RL always had an upper hand on its parent. RL's attractiveness was that it paid its players to play. This was always RL's advantage, and had nothing to do with their game being better. RL's financial incentives was highly tempting for the amateur RU player. And so RU needed something more than just instil amateur values, if its own game was to survive</span><span>.</span> <span></span> <span>1.</span><span> Upper hand?<span> </span>Maybe in Australia (with itsâ âfair goâ society) but in all other ârugbyâ countries (with the exception of PNG) the âestablishmentâ has always favoured RUâ¦â¦..this is the case in the UK, NZ and Franceâ¦â¦and the same influence has restricted the game in many other countries around the globe.</span><span></span> <span></span> <span>2. The âincentivesâ to become a part-time RL player were tenpting to WORKING CLASS sportsmen â not, as mentioned âamateursâ per se.</span><span></span> <span></span> <span>Enter into the early 80's. RU was stuggling, and the game was nearly on its feet. RL was luring away all the big names in RU, and the people associated with the game were afraid that RU was going to be non-existent in 10-20 years. Some time around this period, RU bodies in the southern hemisphere proposed that RU should hold a Rugby World Cup. It was felt that by holding a WC, it would be just enough to reduce the flood of RU players to RL to just a trickle/stream. At first the powers of RU were hesitate because they thought it would then lead on to professionalism (which would later be the case), but then agreed after further convincing of the SH unions.</span> <span></span> <span>1. Was it struggling?<span> </span>Again maybe this is a unique Australian perspective.</span><span></span> <span></span> <span>2.</span><span> I donât disagree about the influence of WCs on the move towards an open RU.<span> </span>Just as the formation of divisions in the UK in the 1980s had an effect.</span> And so the first RWC was held in NZ/Aus in 1987. It turned out to be a major success. Interest in RU was felt everywhere. The RWC's 91 and 95, saw RU soar in popularity and world wide appeal. The talent that was in each nation was showcased to the world. It also provide RL the opportunity to scout many talented players. The RWC was the pinnicle of RU. It also provided RU to show how RU was a superior game than RL. After all, RU's popularity was that it was played around the globe. While RL was confined to Aus/NZ/Eng.<span></span> <span></span> <span>1.</span><span> I agree that the RWCs are big events.<span> </span>I disagree however, that RL is âconfinedâ to Aus/NZ/Engâ¦â¦â¦for futher reference 13world.com</span> <span>Near the end of 1995 after the world cup, RU turned professional. The opportunity to pay its players was there. This turn would see the future of RU secure. No longer can RL lure RU's top players without a fight</span><span>.</span> <span></span> <span>Professionalism in RU has also seen both RU and RL hot up in the code of wars. Now that RU was able to pay its players, it would also mean that RL's advantage which was its </span><span>financial incentives</span><span>, could no longer stand as a valid argument for RU players to switch codes.</span> 1. True â but now it is also true that RL DOESNâT have to pay players in order for them to play RL.<span> </span>Since 1995 people can play RL without penaltyâ¦â¦.and as a result amateur RL is booming around the world<span>.</span> <span></span> <span>And so lead to the debate. Which Rugby code is the better of the two</span><span>. </span> <span></span> <span>So now we are at year 2001. RU is in a great financial position, but its offspring RL is not in good financial shape. Of the 90 odd years or so that RL lured RU's top players away from the game, it was now RU's turn to do the same. So far, talent such as Sailor, Rogers, Robinson and Paul have been big scalps for RU because all are top representitive players for Australia, England, and NZ respectively. A huge loss to say the least, and very damaging to a sport. Just imagine if Australia, England and NZ lost talent such as Larkham, George Smith, Lomu, and Jonny Wilkinson to RL. The effects of this would be felt tremendously, and surely get a sporting body worried.</span> 1. Lomu WAS a RL player â he switched to RU after being offered a place at Auckland Grammer School (I think it was this one).<span> </span>This has been happening throughout NZ, France and Australia for decade<span>s.</span> <span></span> <span>If RL is the greatest sport, why are such top calibre players going to RU? This is a question that has to be asked. Is RL the best sport in the world? When RU was amateur, it used to say that players that went on to play RL, did it for the money. But those in RL claimed they did it more than just for the money. They would say they did it because RL had a better game.</span> 1.<span> </span>For the rest of the diatribe â Iâll let the previous post standâ¦â¦..RU is creating chronic wage inflation.<span> </span>I just hope RL doesnât get sucked in.<span><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
office" /><o
></o
