Tomahawks v Tonga

[PacificCoastRL]

If only people from both sides would take there heads out of the sand, or there ass, and jump down off the pedestal I wouldn't need to.

One is a dictatorship, the other may have lead it's troops into battle blind. ultimately no one is more victim or villain than the other they are just working to different ideals.

Ultimately competition is healthy. If, by trying to develop more teams to try to out do the 'other group', we end up with 1 team a year we end up with progress. If there are 3 'new teams' every two years and only 1 survives, we have progress.


The one thing I'm currently finding weird is that the USARL side seems to be coming across more bitter on the forums.
We first had the whole AMNRL twitter issue but since that went away the revolutionaries have been the most critical and vocal. .

You're right, there is nothing wrong with having two comps. If rugby league continues to grow in the United States there may even be more. Yes, they do things differently, and nobody really cares about that.
The bitterness you mention comes from the fact that USARL players are being excluded from playing for the Tomahawks. That is an injustice, and those supporting the USARL feel frustrated about the situation. A situation that could be remedied if Niu and company, as you put it, would pull their heads out of their ass.

 

[gyallop]

but as I read here isnt that the chicken and the egg ...USARL splits from its governing body knowing its players cant play for the USA then cry foul when they cant , it happened in Australia and the ARL didnt pick the rebels for origin for a few years and in the end common sense prevailed and they came together .........Hopefully they work through it in time for the RLWC.

 

[Bronco Rob]

If only people from both sides would take there heads out of the sand, or there ass, and jump down off the pedestal I wouldn't need to.

One is a dictatorship, the other may have lead it's troops into battle blind. ultimately no one is more victim or villain than the other they are just working to different ideals.

Ultimately competition is healthy. If, by trying to develop more teams to try to out do the 'other group', we end up with 1 team a year we end up with progress. If there are 3 'new teams' every two years and only 1 survives, we have progress.


The one thing I'm currently finding weird is that the USARL side seems to be coming across more bitter on the forums.
We first had the whole AMNRL twitter issue but since that went away the revolutionaries have been the most critical and vocal. .

To be fair Pennpool, most of the criticism is made by forumers who have no affilliation with either camp.

I don't mean to big note myself but I work for an NRL club in development and i would love to see the game gain a firm foothold in the US and I have no agendas at all apart from seeing the game grow and develop internationally. My criticism comes from the fact that I see an organisation that is more interested in the grandeur of running the National side and expanding into new markets rather than looking at developing the game at grass roots level and making the longevity of the game sustainable and viable. If the continuing focus is going to be on getting as many clubs up and running without any support from underneath these clubs the league will eventually die a slow death which none of us want to see.

Conversely I see an organisation who has been only operating for twelve months and they have already started to develop the game at school level with an aim of bringing through these kids to eventually play for the club. That is fantastic long term planning and is the appropriate way of developing the game for long term sustainability.

I think that David Nui has done an incredible job in getting the game to where it is now and I don't think anyone argues against that, but he really needs to relinquish some control for the betterment of the game.

 

[pennpool]

To be fair Pennpool, most of the criticism is made by forumers who have no affilliation with either camp.

I don't mean to big note myself but I work for an NRL club in development and i would love to see the game gain a firm foothold in the US and I have no agendas at all apart from seeing the game grow and develop internationally. My criticism comes from the fact that I see an organisation that is more interested in the grandeur of running the National side and expanding into new markets rather than looking at developing the game at grass roots level and making the longevity of the game sustainable and viable. If the continuing focus is going to be on getting as many clubs up and running without any support from underneath these clubs the league will eventually die a slow death which none of us want to see.

Conversely I see an organisation who has been only operating for twelve months and they have already started to develop the game at school level with an aim of bringing through these kids to eventually play for the club. That is fantastic long term planning and is the appropriate way of developing the game for long term sustainability.

I think that David Nui has done an incredible job in getting the game to where it is now and I don't think anyone argues against that, but he really needs to relinquish some control for the betterment of the game.

It would take a fool to argue against you rob.

 

[pennpool]

You're right, there is nothing wrong with having two comps. If rugby league continues to grow in the United States there may even be more. Yes, they do things differently, and nobody really cares about that.
The bitterness you mention comes from the fact that USARL players are being excluded from playing for the Tomahawks. That is an injustice, and those supporting the USARL feel frustrated about the situation. A situation that could be remedied if Niu and company, as you put it, would pull their heads out of their ass.

The issue with that bitterness being voiced in every thread, by 1 side, is the lasting impression it is leaving.

There only seems to be a couple of overly vocal supporter/troll from the AMNRL that drags threads down constantly yet there are many from USARL side that can drag a topic down in one post. It doesn't give a good impression to the neutrals regardless of the petty treatment that they are receiving from the AMNRL powers that be.

 

[Evil Homer]

The issue with that bitterness being voiced in every thread, by 1 side, is the lasting impression it is leaving.

There only seems to be a couple of overly vocal supporter/troll from the AMNRL that drags threads down constantly yet there are many from USARL side that can drag a topic down in one post. It doesn't give a good impression to the neutrals regardless of the petty treatment that they are receiving from the AMNRL powers that be.

I haven't seen any bitterness from anyone involved with the USARL, on any thread? Certainly not without direct provocation from AMNRL trolls? If you think I and the other critics of the AMNRL are on the USARL's 'side', then you clearly haven't read my posts. If you have any examples of bitterness from the USARL on this forum, then please point them out, as I must have missed them. Otherwise, you are surely not suggesting that the AMNRL should be immune from criticism from neutrals on this forum?

 

[pennpool]

I haven't seen any bitterness from anyone involved with the USARL, on any thread? Certainly not without direct provocation from AMNRL trolls? If you think I and the other critics of the AMNRL are on the USARL's 'side', then you clearly haven't read my posts. If you have any examples of bitterness from the USARL on this forum, then please point them out, as I must have missed them. Otherwise, you are surely not suggesting that the AMNRL should be immune from criticism from neutrals on this forum?

The constant mention and degradation of all things by some people would come across to neutrals as bitter.

There is no direct person or accusation just a collective of posts that come across as bitter and drag topics down.

As has been pointed out its not always people stateside that do it either.

 

[Evil Homer]

The constant mention and degradation of all things by some people would come across to neutrals as bitter.

There is no direct person or accusation just a collective of posts that come across as bitter and drag topics down.

As has been pointed out its not always people stateside that do it either.

How can neutrals with no personal involvement either way be described as 'bitter'? I'm not bitter about anything, I just want what is best for the sport.