QH: First of all, I never suggested that anyone at Waverley was or wasn't paying anything, you seem to have concocted that from somewhere else (possibly another poster). You made a completely false assertion that I had cast some sort of slur on the Waverley 1sts, when I was very clearly talking about the comparison between Marcellin and Waverley which another poster had made.
Secondly, you are the one who made the comment that boys at Marcellin payed half the fees that boys at Waverley do, so I'm somewhat confused that you find in irritating that someone would simply point it out to you. It seems fairly clear that one group of people are essentially getting the same academic result for half the fees as another group.
Thirdly, if people choose to pay higher school fees for the sort of sporting and cultural benefits of which you speak, then in a free country they are perfectly entitled to do so, however, I have never questioned this so I am again somewhat confused as to why you seem to want to muddy fairly clear waters by introducing this.
Finally, at least you get points for consistency in that you seem to be in favour of all schools recruiting players (if I have misprepresented you in this I apologise and withdraw). The people who I find really annoying on this thread are those who don't applying their criticism of recruiting consistently across all schools. If certain schools bring in players it is said to be an obvious case of recruiting, but all manner of excuses are offered for other schools - you only have to go back a page or two to see a few;my favourite one being the group of Year 8 boys who had a meeting and all decided to change schools. I think that this one has taken gold in this category.
Thank you for the patronising compliment for being consistent.
I am in favour of schools providing rugby playing students opportunities when their parents are challenged in paying full fees.
It can lead to players pursuing rugby careers instead of RL post school which is obviously good for the game.
and obviously good the individual.
Any school that builds a good reputation in having a strong rugby program can attract more rugby playing students in future which is again good for the game. Big picture.
The more rugby playing student attending traditionally strong rugby schools the better, that is, over soccer or AFL players.
I do object however, to ridiculous situations being created where a talented hulking front row forward receives a music scholarship for playing the triangle purely so the school can win a Premiership.
It has been abused before but I suppose you can expect a bit of that to go on. I think certain boundaries have been set for GPS schools now.
I cant find the post about the Year 8 boys having a meeting and all deciding to change schools. It was mentioned that some kids playing in a Premiership winning junior Randwick rugby team made up predominately of Waverley students, wanted to change schools to join their mates. I hope more from that team have enrolled at Waverley. I forget how many Waverley students were in that U14s team (?) but it was significant and highlighted the good work being done by both school and club and also highlighted the good relationship between the two.
OK, I may have misinterpreted your comment about paying half the fees as being a facetious comment about students not paying full fees. I can see now it was a facetious comment about paying double the fees for similar academic results, but seeing as this is a rugby thread you ignored the obvious benefits of attending a rugby school for rugby players, as opposed to attending a league school. .....
Ditto your second fastidious point. you ignored the rugby benefits.
Didn't you make a facetious comment about how fortunate it was that there were places found for the new rugby playing students ? The inference is obvious.
Anyway, I agree that you're never wrong so you win.
