Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
Tier Two & Three Rugby
Loophole in Eligibility laws welcomed news for Pacific Island Nation
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Shaggy" data-source="post: 713627" data-attributes="member: 43400"><p>What, you mean like taxation! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> ... seriously though, your comparison is apt in the sense that there's an element of risk in both Rugby and corn farming in that both have to plan for/expect unforeseen loss - both are subject to market pressures, and experience loss, the corn farmer to weather conditions, and pests. Yes, the NZRU should try to protect what they have developed, but impeding players that might otherwise play for NZ seems unwise to me. It kind of makes the decision for those players, or, at the very least, encourages them to play their Rugby somewhere other than NZ.</p><p></p><p>Like I said/implied in a previous post, the only real player retention tool the NZRU has, is the prospect of playing for the All Blacks if the players stay in NZ, and the loss of some players is inevitable, regardless of a players ethnic background, hence the risk.</p><p></p><p>I know the unions are after financial compensation for lack of player availability, and you and I have talked about transfer and other fees to compensate for player development previously on other threads, but it's hard to see any of the PI unions having the means to compensate the ITM cup sides, unless World Rugby itself comes up with the cash.</p><p></p><p>As for the ITM cup's value, and the ARU trying to emulate it, your singing to the choir here ... the ARU needs a domestic competition to develop a wider pool of players, and to retain the ones they already have.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Shaggy, post: 713627, member: 43400"] What, you mean like taxation! :p ... seriously though, your comparison is apt in the sense that there's an element of risk in both Rugby and corn farming in that both have to plan for/expect unforeseen loss - both are subject to market pressures, and experience loss, the corn farmer to weather conditions, and pests. Yes, the NZRU should try to protect what they have developed, but impeding players that might otherwise play for NZ seems unwise to me. It kind of makes the decision for those players, or, at the very least, encourages them to play their Rugby somewhere other than NZ. Like I said/implied in a previous post, the only real player retention tool the NZRU has, is the prospect of playing for the All Blacks if the players stay in NZ, and the loss of some players is inevitable, regardless of a players ethnic background, hence the risk. I know the unions are after financial compensation for lack of player availability, and you and I have talked about transfer and other fees to compensate for player development previously on other threads, but it's hard to see any of the PI unions having the means to compensate the ITM cup sides, unless World Rugby itself comes up with the cash. As for the ITM cup's value, and the ARU trying to emulate it, your singing to the choir here ... the ARU needs a domestic competition to develop a wider pool of players, and to retain the ones they already have. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Tier Two & Three Rugby
Loophole in Eligibility laws welcomed news for Pacific Island Nation
Top