Who refused Falonk?

[russ13]

Steve Mascord's take on it back in January:

Discord is sick of hearing about how rugby league "bungled" the return of Israel Folau.
Why is the sport so insecure that its athletes become more important to followers after they leave?

From all accounts, Folau was no better than a fair Australian Rules player. Shouldn't his stocks in our game have slumped in his absence, not risen to the point where rules should be bent to get him back?

There are many of you who don't believe the salary cap is responsible for the NRL having crowned nine different premiers in 15 years. I don't agree with you. I think it is easily the biggest contributing factor to that parity, which is an even more remarkable achievement in the absence of a draft.

The salary cap is rugby league's most successful construct. Stripping two premierships from the Storm because they cheated it only makes it stronger and more influential – there is now an even greater deterrent to breaking it.

The salary cap is more important than any individual – including Israel Folau and Sonny Bill Williams. As Adrian Morley writes in his new biography, the evenness of the NRL is a rarity in world sport. Its rarity makes it precious.

Sure, it would have been nice if the salary cap increase had been introduced before Folau decided to go to rugby union. But I don't think the ARL Commission should give a tinker's cuss about the plans of an individual player. Nor should the commissioners care about what I write in this column.

They are there to do what is in the interests of the game, and they are there to do it when it can be accomplished without complications.

It's a matter for Israel Folau to wait around for them to do it or to go and do something else. That's what he's done and good luck to him.

This tendency to fawn over those who leave rugby league and beg them to come back is unseemly and even a little pathetic.
*


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-leag...eague-short-20130104-2c8ib.html#ixzz2SmxdZd5G

 

[Pierced Soul]

This tendency to fawn over those who leave rugby league and beg them to come back is unseemly and even a little pathetic.


agree 100% with mascord here. the NRL didnt fall apart when $bw left. didnt fall apart when hunt or folau went. didnt fal apart years earlier when we lost sailor, rogers, walker or tuquiri

we should be backing our game more and if someone leaves and wants to come back they need to show us they're willing to take less money and come back not for us to throw more money at them. right now it's like the pathetic boyfriend who keeps begging his ex to come back

 

[Bandwagon]

That depends upon whether or not Schubert makes the rules or simply enforces them.

It is not the rules that are the problem, it is Schubert's interpretation of them, and his inconsistency in doing so, coupled with what would seem to be absolute autonomy, with no real oversight nor process of appeal.

 

[Perth Red]

Maybe he didn't believe that a player that could earn a mint in RU was really willing to play in The NRL for peanuts?

 

[Ulysseus]

All the merkin was good for was jumping to catch balls and scoring four pointers when there was no merkin standing in front of him.

 

[Kurt Angle]

Who cares, the longer Falou stays away, the less likely he will be able to be a star player in RL.

What did Rogers, Sailor or Tuquiri do once they came back?

The ARU CEO has just announced that Australian based RU players should expect pay cuts as they have no money left. The NRL salary cap will rise around 8% per year.

The big bucks coming are playing in the NRL, not RU, and all we've lost is a QLD SOO winger (once again).

 

[gUt]

Rogers was pretty good when he came back. Strangely he also cops it from the leather patch brigade when he was pretty clearly the best back in the Wallabies for a while.

Sailor's return to league was a good thing too.

 

[Spanner in the works]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...cap-changes-20130510-2jdly.html#ixzz2StnWnBEu

Smith flags salary cap changes

May 11, 2013


Adrian Proszenko
Chief Rugby League Reporter

NRL CEO Dave Smith will review the world's best salary cap systems during the next six months with a view to modernising the rugby league version to ensure the best athletes are attracted to the game.

Smith, who marks his 100th day as the boss of the ARL Commission on Sunday, is looking at strategies to develop the game on and off the field.

One of those is tweaking the salary cap, the great leveller of playing talent, in a way that ensures marquee players such as Sonny Bill Williams and Israel Folau are retained or recruited.

''The salary cap has been hugely successful in many respects in terms of competitiveness and maintaining the statistics around how many teams have reached the finals series and how many teams have reached the grand final,'' Smith said. ''It has been hugely successful by world standards, so you take your hat off to that.

Advertisement
''However, the world moves on, and we as a game have got to constantly evolve. I will have a look at the salary cap and I will look to maintain all of the really positive things it represents in terms of competitiveness, but modernise it.

''We want people in our game from start to finish, and we want to widen participation.

''We want the best athletes in our game. We absolutely want the Sonny Bill Williamses and the Folaus … they are are very welcome in our game. We need to maintain the discipline the salary cap gives but modernise it so that it represents society as it is today, tomorrow and in five years' time.

''It's a priority for me over the next six months so that we can think it through, it won't be kneejerk or any rush. It's about positioning the game for the future.''

Clubs are concerned that the policing of the cap has forced some of the best talent out of the game. None more so than the Eels, who are furious over the protracted negotiations with cap auditor Ian Schubert that resulted in Folau joining the Waratahs. The cap - $5.85 million this year - will be one of the responsibilities of incoming chief operating officer Jim Doyle.

It's likely Doyle and Smith will study systems such as those in football, cricket and rugby to ascertain whether marquee allowances or central contracts could play a role in the league version. It could result in changes in time for next season. ''I have got some initial ideas but the first thing I want to do is think about the different structures you could have,'' Smith said. ''You look at the strengths and weaknesses. There are many salary cap structures around the world, and some work very well and others less well. As part of the thinking and analysis, I want to look at all of those models.

''The key thing is, [our system] isn't broken, but we want to make sure we're keeping up with the times.

''I want to create a model where people look at us and go, 'Really good system, it does all the things you want it to and maintains competitiveness but doesn't unnecessarily constrain athletes.'''

Massive fan of Smith.

 

[Perth Red]

Last year clubs were skint and needed $500k to pay the bills.now they can afford marquee salaries? I thought the idea was to keep the grant above the cap to keep clubs sustainable?

 

[Spanner in the works]

Last year clubs were skint and needed $500k to pay the bills.now they can afford marquee salaries? I thought the idea was to keep the grant above the cap to keep clubs sustainable?

Subsidised players by the NRL?

 

[Perth Red]

That will go down well with rival clubs!

 

[Kurt Angle]

Rogers was pretty good when he came back. Strangely he also cops it from the leather patch brigade when he was pretty clearly the best back in the Wallabies for a while.

Brett Sheehan can look good in the Wallabies, it's not like they play against world class athletes now is it?

Rogers came back and showed the same flaws that made him leave in the first place.

Rogers left because he thought he had play making skills, yet he couldn't displace Adam Dykes or Mitch Healey. Every coash thought he was NRL winger quality.

Now he goes to rah-rah, pushes Burke out of the NSW fullback spot, then eventually pushes Larkham out of Wallabies 5/8... about as impressive as tipping a cripple out of his wheelchair.

Now when he came back to NRL, he thought he upskilled. You see what happened when Presto was out injured and they put Roger in an NRL starting 5/8 gig?

When we want 'star's, you think to yourself, 'who can you add to Parra or Wests and make them contenders?'.

Rogers? Tuquiri? Sailor?.... Falou ?

F*ck no, you'd want to clone Andrew Johns, not some wingers.

Sailor's return to league was a good thing too.

In what way? He was up to being a backup for an injury sure, but again he was never going to turn a pretender into a contender.

 

[BODISGOD]

When did Rogers displace Larkham? He played just 5 tests as a fly half, when Larkham was unavailable or against lesser opposition.

The sample size of RL-RU-RL is extremely small and flawed because many returned at the end of their careers. Example of guys who have come back well are SBW, Gasnier, I Harris and Tahu. The 2003 League back three in Union came back into their thirties and in the case of Sailor following a drug ban.

 

[gUt]

Sailor generated a lot of hype and publicity and love him or hate him was a very marketable commodity.

 

[Parra]

Rogers never displaced Burke either. But don't let facts get in the way. He was good for the Wallabies and was best used as an impact player from the bench. With no interchange in rugby, a player like Rogers could come on with 20 minutes to go and make a difference.

 

[Kurt Angle]

When did Rogers displace Larkham? He played just 5 tests as a fly half, when Larkham was unavailable or against lesser opposition.

Erhh no. You once again show you don't know anything about RU, let alone RL.

Rogers started playing 5/8 on a northern hemisphere tour, and he had Larkham moved to inside centre. Rogers had played the year at 5/8 for the Waratahs and demonstrated to be a better player, when it came to distribution and shaping the attack.

Not better than Dykes or Healey though, nor Preston Campbell.

 

[Kurt Angle]

Rogers never displaced Burke either. But don't let facts get in the way. He was good for the Wallabies and was best used as an impact player from the bench. With no interchange in rugby, a player like Rogers could come on with 20 minutes to go and make a difference.

Stop talking rubbish.

Rogers first Shitty 12 game was against a NZ team, I'm thinking Waikato but can't remember, and it had Rogers in 15 and Matt Burke at 13.

Just a 20 minute interchange player?

He was the STARTING FULLBACK for the 2003 world cup final. he played 45 tests and started over 35 of them. Look who wore the number 22 in that final, duds like Joe Roff were the "20 minutes to go 'impact' players".

 

[BODISGOD]

Erhh no. You once again show you don't know anything about RU, let alone RL.

Rogers started playing 5/8 on a northern hemisphere tour, and he had Larkham moved to inside centre. Rogers had played the year at 5/8 for the Waratahs and demonstrated to be a better player, when it came to distribution and shaping the attack.

Not better than Dykes or Healey though, nor Preston Campbell.

Good to know you keep abreast of your rugby union except that tour it was a 2/2 split - Rodgers started 2 and Larkham 2. He was never the long term replacement. Check out their career match list. Rogers had designs on being the 10 but at Tri Nations never was tried, barring once when there was an injuries. By the end Rodgers was an impact utility sub for Wallabies. He was well and truly beaten out for 10 by Larkham by the end of 2006 and was back in League soon after.

In fact;

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2006/11/16/uk-rugby-australia-team-idUKSP22394020061116

(Reuters) - Stephen Larkham has been returned to his preferred position at flyhalf for Sunday's test against Ireland in Dublin after Australia's selectors dropped Mat Rogers to the bench.

Larkham had played inside centre, with Rogers at flyhalf in the Wallabies' previous two tests in Europe as part of an experiment looking ahead to next year's World Cup in France.

But coach John Connolly, under criticism as his team struggles to find their form, has given the number 10 shirt back to Larkham and relegated Rogers to the reserves in a reshuffled backline.

Mark Gerrard was recalled to the starting side on the wing after playing flyhalf in Australia A's win over Ireland A in Limerick on Wednesday, allowing Lote Tuqiri to partner captain Stirling Mortlock in the centres.

The only change to the pack that started in last weekend's 25-18 win over Italy in Rome is the recall of Phil Waugh at openside flanker for George Smith.

 

[Parra]

Stop talking rubbish.

Rogers first Shitty 12 game was against a NZ team, I'm thinking Waikato but can't remember, and it had Rogers in 15 and Matt Burke at 13.

Just a 20 minute interchange player?

He was the STARTING FULLBACK for the 2003 world cup final. he played 45 tests and started over 35 of them. Look who wore the number 22 in that final, duds like Joe Roff were the "20 minutes to go 'impact' players".

You disparage the role of impact players, not me. I wouldn't call roff or rogers duds.

 

[Kurt Angle]

Good to know you keep abreast of your rugby union except that tour it was a 2/2 split - Rodgers started 2 and Larkham 2. He was never the long term replacement. Check out their career match list. Rogers had designs on being the 10 but at Tri Nations never was tried, barring once when there was an injuries. By the end Rodgers was an impact utility sub for Wallabies. He was well and truly beaten out for 10 by Larkham by the end of 2006 and was back in League soon after.

In fact;

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2006/11/16/uk-rugby-australia-team-idUKSP22394020061116

Check my facts?

It says exactly what I claimed you dunce.

By the end of his career, Rogers had played well enough to displace Larkham. I know full well he wasn't that good at the role, but he actually contended the spot, and made larkham move to inside centre whilst on the field at the same time.

EXACTLY.WHAT.I.SAID.

he never moved Dykes or Healey to another position.

But then again, the Wallabies are a step down from the Sharks.