Reds v Waratahs, round 19 2014

[tranquility]

That's because I'm a balanced and reasonable person and you're the rugby fan equivalent of jihad extremist.

It doesn't take a legal education to understand that any person who describes his own "opinions" as "balanced and reasonable", probably is someone not to have dealings with.

 

[Pfitzy]

Okay, I have been meaning to say this for a while. Pfitzy, you were clearly a bullied redneck, who never grew out of those mental scars. You now piss in a pot in the wilderness that you scantily pretend to be Sydney. This much is clear.

If you really want me to reply to BH point for point I will. But not this night.

Good evening.

Bullied? Hardly more than anyone else who had attended high school. Though growing up in the country I probably was a redneck at some point; racism (in a non-violent way) and general ignorance is definitely part of the deal in small country towns. Thankfully I've outgrown it. Well, most of it.

But back to the point, hmm?

You can't even make a salient point in the face of the arguments BH presented you while ignoring my above comment. Instead you're simpering off like a flouncy little tart, with your delusions of eloquence and superiority, using my post as a pretext when it's quite clear you had your arse handed to you.

As is plainly clear, you have a vendetta against the Waratahs franchise (it's not a "club" as anyone who actually understands the system would know) and it's only because of Tapatalk not blocking you as the website does that I stumbled across this rubbish.

Still, it has made my night, watching BraveHeart correct you with cold, precise logic. I doubt whether I'd have spent the time trying to put you right, because your type of keyboard warrior will just scuttle under some other rock where no one questions their precious, but limited, view.

And I hate autocorrect

 

[I like to watch]

It doesn't take a legal education to understand that any person who describes his own "opinions" as "balanced and reasonable", probably is someone not to have dealings with.

That's about your fifth sledge in this thread.
Talk footy or give it up.
I'd actually be quite interested in your response to some of the posts,that made your viewpoint look bitter,biased and without apparent foundation.

Edit: too slow on the draw so yeah what Pfitzty said or similar....

 

[tranquility]

Pfitz,

Let me tell you why it's a dead give away. You need to constantly refer to other posters, and need to feel part of a collective. Just stand on your own feet, you"re fully grown now - those mean boys can't hurt you anymore.

To be honest, I am happy to talk rugby. However whenever you say anything against the norm, you get a barrage of this vitriol and inevitably you get sucked into it.

I am just cooking dinner at the moment, but if you actually want to continue this discussion where it started I will be happy to continue in 45 minutes.

Cheers

 

[boyo]

You don't know about the Saracens, do you?

And Northampton

 

[Highlander35]

And Northampton

I try, and try, and try to dislike Northampton.

But then they stick up a couple of middle fingers and just pay the fine when North plays outside the window, and I get a wry "good on you" smile.

 

[Pfitzy]

Pfitz,

Let me tell you why it's a dead give away. You need to constantly refer to other posters, and need to feel part of a collective. Just stand on your own feet, you"re fully grown now - those mean boys can't hurt you anymore.

To be honest, I am happy to talk rugby. However whenever you say anything against the norm, you get a barrage of this vitriol and inevitably you get sucked into it.

I am just cooking dinner at the moment, but if you actually want to continue this discussion where it started I will be happy to continue in 45 minutes.

Cheers

Actually I've got little to add from the player detail standpoint - BH pretty much covered it.

And I often make my own arguments. Quite regularly they're coherent and rational. The fact that you don't read all my posts doesn't mean you're right about any part of my online persona.

The Tahs aren't getting any more favouritism than they deserve, based on the relevant points about population size, importance as a rugby province, desirability as a player base, and the attractiveness of the coaching setup. Brisbane gets a lot of the same advantage being a rugby stronghold, though maybe not the coaching bit right now

Canberra also offers proximity to Sydney for those that want it, and a good setup in of facilities and coaching. It isn't as cosmopolitan as Melbourne and not quite as big as Perth, but I think for a rugby player the three areas offer something very similar. But in terms of coaching neither Perth not Melbourne are going to be magnetic.

When it comes to hanging onto players, the outrage from Nick Cummins having to go overseas for money is understandable. But again with the options available and the contracts already awarded, could the ARU really afford to do anything it without being advised of further financial irresponsibility?

Australian rugby is in a hole because it put itself there after Super League appeared on the horizon, and the Old Boys' Club didn't know how to react. They panicked, and we were living with the results of that right through until Pulver decided enough was enough.

 

[gel]

I am trying to track down the relevant articles to cite, but am having some trouble, but there are a couple of top up people that have been mentioned that are somewhat outliers.........

The finger twins aren't on top ups. When the contract was last up for renewal, it was publicized that they would be having their top ups removed even though both at the time were being used in the wallaby squad. I think it was midway through 2012. I found that to be a bit rich at the time, but in retrospect seemed to be the correct decision.

Benn Robinson's last ARU contract (including top up) was for three years, which I presume (but do not know for sure) would include that top up for the duration of that contract. It would be a bit retarded if he had a contract for so long, but still had to negotiate for yearly (say) top ups during that same time frame. I find that decision to be a bit rich, and would it would appear to not be the correct decision.

I hate the top ups - but do struggle to satisfactorily suggest a pain free solution (although what I have suggested in the past I still think would be better than what we have now, I can see others views as being pretty valid so am left somewhat in limbo).

 

[Pfitzy]

The alternative solution is like the South African or Cricket Australia one: annual list of top ups.

While it protects you from players who fall out of form or get long term injuries, it scares the fish a bit. Risk of players just chasing money target than risking their best years just to get beaten out by a once-in-a-generation superstar.

 

[Highlander35]

Put everybody on central Contracts?

 

[Pfitzy]

Effectively they are though agent they? Province pays up to a certain value for a set number of contracts + EPS which forms the cap. ARU gets oversight of everything

 

[ChargerWA]

Being a supporter of a Super team where it is likely we don't have a single player on a top up, I think the system stinks.

If the ARU were serious about growing the game in all of Aus, they would guarantee the same amount of money that gets paid to each team. The value of the top ups would be set by the ARU and each team has to pay that to the player. If a team doesn't have enough players on top ups to use all of the money, they then are obliged to spend that on development in their Provence.

Match payments to still be separate and paid as per now.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Top Ups is the best system.

The ARU is able to prioritise the additional money for Wallabies players, on the players they want to retain as Wallabies. The top up system itself does not benefit a single franchise, as the top ups are completely independent of franchise contracts and a player can change franchises as they see fit (within contract constraints) in their top up contract period. It's fully flexible within Australian teams. Barring the rumour of the ARU only wanting to give Hunt a top up to go to a developing team (Melbourne), I do not know of any cases where they are directed players to teams based on this. I also do not know of any cases of players receiving unwarranted top ups contracts out of line with their wallaby selection, or status in the wallaby pecking order. Some undeserving players did, but it was widespread at the time, not confined to Waratahs players.

If the money was spread evenly, Super Rugby teams would focus on what is their need. Every team needs a good 9 and 10 for example. Additional funds being spend on 5 halfbacks and 5 flyhalfs does not benefit the Wallabies. The Waratahs and Reds have show that Super Rugby success can be achieved with an inferior set piece. How would we be if every team overpaid their 7 to keep them because most are one of the best players in the team, yet didn't throw enough money at the top tight forwards to keep them?

Where the system is unfair, is simply that due to the origins of the game, most players want to be in Sydney or Brisbane, so therefore they end up with more topped up players. I think the best way to resolve this would be to allow for greater increases to Perth and Melbourne in their salary cap whilst perhaps keeping the other 3 as it is in real terms (only increase with CPI at best) much like the COLA in AFL. This gives the teams that have to recruit interstate a fighting chance. It enables the funds to be directed at the ARU's discretion, and also allows the players to choose where they play on factors beyond financial.

 

[Hawko]

Being a supporter of a Super team where it is likely we don't have a single player on a top up, I think the system stinks.

If the ARU were serious about growing the game in all of Aus, they would guarantee the same amount of money that gets paid to each team. The value of the top ups would be set by the ARU and each team has to pay that to the player. If a team doesn't have enough players on top ups to use all of the money, they then are obliged to spend that on development in their Provence.

Match payments to still be separate and paid as per now.

But then you get a system where multiple test players have to leave their provincial home and move to where there is money left in the top-up kitty. The end result is every province will have 5 or 6 test players, most of whom will have to move to get the top-up.

That's a pretty ugly result for anyone that's married and/or has a young family, especially if the partner has a well-established job.

But the long term goal is for each province to grow their own, for the most part at least. At the Force that is starting to happen, it just takes a hell of a lot longer than we want it to.

 

[Pfitzy]

And throwing money at the top level to attract a non-local product won't assist the grass roots get stronger.

Note: this is the CURRENT scenario. In the future, after the ARU has finished cutting back to pay for past mistakes, and the wallabies are back on track as an attractive proposition for sponsors and fringe fans, the money will be there.

But if we don't shore up the traditional rugby areas, they're won't be any growth for anyone. I live in Western Sydney and it might as well be Perth in terms of grass roots.

 

[tranquility]

Surely if they are being payed an extra denomination by the central bank of Aus rugby, they can be placed wherever the ARU deems the most need. Not dissimilar to the thinking of the draft. Surely the fact that a player wants to play in "insert city" is not enough to say well that's the best we can do. Right now we need to be spending as much money as possible in Perth, which is actually taking to the game and developing players. Not to mention getting crowds.

What if Sean McMahon wants to do a Michael Hooper and come home and play for Brothers? He will be the next captain of the Rebels, but do we just say, well he wanted to come home.. We produced him, tough biscuits.

If the answer to this is yes, which undoubtedly it would be if it was a NSW player, then we are stuffed.

 

[Pfitzy]

But if a player doesn't like the look of Perth, and they're desirable enough, then they'll just go to France, Japan, or league. The ARU isn't in the position to force anyone to go anywhere.

Beale's management is already engaging in brinkmanship after his performance on Saturday. Hasler at the Bulldogs has chimed in apparently expressing his desire to get him - despite the defensive issues. There will come a time where rugby draws a line in the sand on these things, but not while the entire game as a national force is under threat.

Not also that RUPA is going to step in at some point to ensure their members' rights are being looked after. Of you try to give a player to go somewhere, RUPA will basically accuse the ARU of communism and threaten strikes. Then we're really stuffed.

Nationally, the game needs to get things back on track financially, and that can't happen if we lose their primary resource: players. Win a Bledisloe and a World Cup and give the casual fan something to watch again rather than a muddle like Melbourne. We can't change the laws because the 6N doesn't care. What we can do is rise above the laws and make victory undeniable.

 

[tranquility]

We can't change the laws because the 6N doesn't care. What we can do is rise above the laws and make victory undeniable.

By this, I take it you mean stack one of our sides and have the rest of our sides cross their finger's that the great blue side will bring prosperity and save the rest of us?

I would rather roll over now, if this is the plan.

This is the exact train of thought, that makes the Waratahs as a model so insufferable.

The thought that all other sides are just play things to the greater plan and planning of the flower boys.

"Rise above the laws", really???

 

[boyo]

I try, and try, and try to dislike Northampton.

But then they stick up a couple of middle fingers and just pay the fine when North plays outside the window, and I get a wry "good on you" smile.

Then try harder.

I support any team playing Northampton, and if they're playing Saracens I'll probably support Saracens (because they have fewer twats, and my f-i-l used to play for them).

 

[Pfitzy]

By this, I take it you mean stack one of our sides and have the rest of our sides cross their finger's that the great blue side will bring prosperity and save the rest of us?

I would rather roll over now, if this is the plan.

This is the exact train of thought, that makes the Waratahs as a model so insufferable.

The thought that all other sides are just play things to the greater plan and planning of the flower boys.

"Rise above the laws", really???

You know, it's funny in a way. I've gone several posts without being in any way offensive toward you, even on the casual level you so desperately deserve as a minimum. I've even gone out of my way to explain things in detail rather than just be dismissive.

But I'm strongly of the opinion that, if I post up a single word, like, say, "cabbage", I bet you'd find a way to make a NSW plot out of it. Fucking hell.

Laws of the GAME for the paranoid.

I'm doing my best to be patient and talk at an appropriate level so you can keep up, but it's clear I need to use smaller words or longer explanations.

Trying again:

The Wallabies have to win for the ARU to get more money.

To do this, they have to beat teams from other nations (that's what the "international" status of "Test "rugby refers to).

In a competitive sporting market, the Wallabies have to win pretty, because most people don't get rugby. There are three other football codes competing in the same sand pit, and some of those people are unlikely to ever watch rugby unless it's attractive or popular to do so.

The other sides in Test rugby don't give a fuck how they win, because they HAVE money and a much larger fan base to drive revenue.

Therefore, the 6N, who are quite happy with their sold out arenas, don't have any burning desire to change the Laws just because Australia has three other codes to compete with.

Therefore, the Wallabies have to bring quality rugby - not just penalty goals - to the international arena despite all the negativity that Test rugby involves. And do it so well that the established practice of poor refereeing can't catch up with it.

Wallabies win = more money in ARU pockets

Wallabies win big shiny cups playing pretty rugby, this amount goes up.

More money for ARU means more money for provinces and their franchise.

Means more money for grassroots development of local talent.

Eventually means more equity in competition and contacting Australia wide.

Means less small minded "what about me???" types burning NSW/ARU effigies.





Reminds me of a story i heard from Jakarta. Workers wanted more pay but they only got half the increase asked for. So they burned down the factory in protest...