Well, happy to hear how you'd solve it legendDoesn't really matter because we've committed to not changing anything.
Well, happy to hear how you'd solve it legendDoesn't really matter because we've committed to not changing anything.
Theres a7001,111 page thread around here somewhere with plenty of my thoughts.
rename thread as Aussie Player RetentionI think RA is doing reasonably well on player retention (which the thread is about). How many important players have RA lost in reality? Not a huge amount. They are constrained (like NZR) on population base etc, and so isn't endless amount of coin to keep paying players what some can get in NH.
All the yelling that rugby in Aus will die is just wind. WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) etc will make sure it doesn't even if it did look like it would.
The whole ‘reverting to historical norms’ is such a copout. We had a huge financial headstart and strong performances at the start of the professional era and cooked it. What relevance is, for example, the amateur games struggles in the 60s and 70s at this point?
The top down model doesnt work and its biting NZ as well. They were just in a way better position.
Yeah and none of them work. I'm confused. As you say, most of their comps are equally unviable financially.Every model is a top down model. The reason why the home nations and France and generally in a strong position these days is because of the Six Nations providing them with huge amounts of money.
The English Premiership is full of sides in financial strife. The French competition is bankrolled by wealthy owners and wouldn't be close to resembling what it is without owners willing to lose money.
What was our huge financial headstart?