It's not a new problem. There was never an issue when the Anzac test was on. No one complained when origin players backed up two days later.
Again that's not comparable to the current situation cause the clubs get a a return for their investment through the money made by the ANZAC test being reinvested into them...
And their were issues with the ANZAC test, that's why it isn't mid-season anymore...
No ROI? Bullshit! International RL help to promote RL and leads to increased revenue, which both the NRL and its clubs benefit from.
The clubs also benefit by having their players play at a higher standard and then going back to their clubs.
That's not direct return on investment, you assume that a growth in internationals leads directly to increased revenue for them, and it's also unmeasurable.
The money that they are losing is measurable (though to my knowledge nobody has measured the exact losses that are incurred in a situation similar to this, and I imagine that they are highly variable) and it's definitely a loss of revenue...
Yes the NRL did approve an international window. When they announced origin on a weekend, they also announced that pacific nations would play. This was followed by the RFL and RLIF aligning with the NRL. It was not a board voting agenda item.
Look this is an aside, and I don't really care either way, but are you sure that they approved it, cause it seems to me like it's an accepted fact that they did approve or willing approve it when we don't know that... I've never seen the stuff that you'd expect like announcement that they are supporting, all I've seen from Australia are a couple of articles by Mascord, that's it, but frankly if they did support it they shouldn't make promises that they could't fulfill...
Also the Pacific Tests have been played on a rep weekend for years now, used to be alongside CvC during the SOO period or ANZAC test weekend, it wasn't created for an international window, and the way that you've written that suggests that the RFL and RLIF unilaterally decided to line up a weekend and force the issue (which frankly considering that we're talking about RL wouldn't surprise me at all)...
The NRL was fine with England travelling to Aus for a match mid season. The NRL was also OK with NZ travelling to Perth and had agreed to support competition matches in Asia, London and America.
The England players that traveled to Aus aren't the NRL or NRL club's concern and their loss didn't effect the NRL clubs, so not their concern, however the NRL based players that took part in that game did effect the NRL clubs so yeah the revenue they lost due to the loss of those players for the time that they were off due to that game should have been covered, but it wasn't and for whatever reason the clubs didn't seem to mind.
The only thing that makes this game any different is that it is being played at higher altitude, which doctors have said is a non issue.
Irrelevant to my argument...
My argument is 100% economic, it has nothing to do with either travel or absurd concerns about altitude.
If the NRL clubs made money would it be ok? If so, how much?
Enough to cover the the losses that they incurred due to the time that players were away because of the match, but I think if you were creative you could cover the difference in a mutually beneficial way instead of just a lump sum.
I think a better strategy would make it so NRL clubs that have injured players during rep matches can replace them without it affecting the salary cap.
I agree, but it doesn't go far enough cause even if it doesn't effect their salary cap it'll still be effecting their bottom line as they'll still have players away cause they are playing internationals, they'll still have lost revenue cause of having to pay the salary of a player that isn't playing, lower ticket sales, etc, especially if a player is lost due to an injury that happens during the international.
