Chat Forum
It is currently Fri May 25, 2018 5:29 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 406 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 8:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 13145
naki wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
A few Aussie posters are underestimating how much the NZRU hate the ARU. If the ARU were to turn up at the doorstep with a gold egg laying geese and offered to share it. The NZRU will probably shoot it.


You don’t understand any of the players involved. You seem to thinking of the ‘battles’ of previous administrations, when they were actually CALLED the ARU and the NZRU.

NZR simply understand what ongoing contact with SA means both for rugby and financial reasons. A Transtasman comp, for all it’s benefits, is only ever going to be a last resort.

Why wouls it need be last resort? Hands down it should've been firsr option. It's an age old idea which NZRU have constantly poured cold water on. I reckon they've forgotten why they're against it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 9:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:27 am
Posts: 340
Location: Mostly in my own head
Why is it when Aussies come up with ideas to fix their rugby it nearly always involves New Zealand doing something that's non beneficial.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 9:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13679
Location: XPAT CUNT
CrazyIslander wrote:
naki wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
A few Aussie posters are underestimating how much the NZRU hate the ARU. If the ARU were to turn up at the doorstep with a gold egg laying geese and offered to share it. The NZRU will probably shoot it.


You don’t understand any of the players involved. You seem to thinking of the ‘battles’ of previous administrations, when they were actually CALLED the ARU and the NZRU.

NZR simply understand what ongoing contact with SA means both for rugby and financial reasons. A Transtasman comp, for all it’s benefits, is only ever going to be a last resort.

Why wouls it need be last resort? Hands down it should've been firsr option. It's an age old idea which NZRU have constantly poured cold water on. I reckon they've forgotten why they're against it.


The reason given by NZR why they're against just a TT comp, is because they rightly think the current system gives them an edge over the Bok. Gets players uses to the abrasive SA style and playing at altitude.

At the end of the day, NZR have to maintain a brand, and for kiwis that's the ABs being the best rugby team in the world. I wonder what would happen to rugby's popularity in NZ if they spent 15 years bouncing between 2nd and 5th.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 9:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:27 am
Posts: 340
Location: Mostly in my own head
CrazyIslander wrote:
naki wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
A few Aussie posters are underestimating how much the NZRU hate the ARU. If the ARU were to turn up at the doorstep with a gold egg laying geese and offered to share it. The NZRU will probably shoot it.


You don’t understand any of the players involved. You seem to thinking of the ‘battles’ of previous administrations, when they were actually CALLED the ARU and the NZRU.

NZR simply understand what ongoing contact with SA means both for rugby and financial reasons. A Transtasman comp, for all it’s benefits, is only ever going to be a last resort.

Why wouls it need be last resort? Hands down it should've been firsr option. It's an age old idea which NZRU have constantly poured cold water on. I reckon they've forgotten why they're against it.


Super rugby works for NZ with both Aus and SA and is a better product. Why would we want to be in a Comp with just Aus.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14214
Location: Tahstown
Vahian wrote:
Why is it when Aussies come up with ideas to fix their rugby it nearly always involves New Zealand doing something that's non beneficial.

Oh...do list these please
NZRU have never got over Oz taking sole hosting rights in 03 and we know how Kiwis hold a grudge


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25724
Vahian wrote:
Super rugby works

No it doesn't.

Quote:
and is a better product.

No it isn't.

Super Rugby is failing on almost any measure.

Quote:
Why would we want to be in a Comp with just Aus.

Why indeed ... but who really cares what NZ wants?

It's going to be a question of revenue.

When the financials don't stack up ... buh-bye Soup!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 13145
Zakar wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
naki wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
A few Aussie posters are underestimating how much the NZRU hate the ARU. If the ARU were to turn up at the doorstep with a gold egg laying geese and offered to share it. The NZRU will probably shoot it.


You don’t understand any of the players involved. You seem to thinking of the ‘battles’ of previous administrations, when they were actually CALLED the ARU and the NZRU.

NZR simply understand what ongoing contact with SA means both for rugby and financial reasons. A Transtasman comp, for all it’s benefits, is only ever going to be a last resort.

Why wouls it need be last resort? Hands down it should've been firsr option. It's an age old idea which NZRU have constantly poured cold water on. I reckon they've forgotten why they're against it.


The reason given by NZR why they're against just a TT comp, is because they rightly think the current system gives them an edge over the Bok. Gets players uses to the abrasive SA style and playing at altitude.

At the end of the day, NZR have to maintain a brand, and for kiwis that's the ABs being the best rugby team in the world. I wonder what would happen to rugby's popularity in NZ if they spent 15 years bouncing between 2nd and 5th.

Bullshit reason though.
When the ABs were bouncing between 2nd and 5th in the early 90s the Warriors became as big as the ABs, at least in Auckland.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11628
Location: Spiritual Guardianland
You just front up with that sweet Australian Kreuger rand Kiap and then we shall talk shop ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:27 am
Posts: 340
Location: Mostly in my own head
kiap wrote:
Vahian wrote:
Super rugby works

No it doesn't.

Quote:
and is a better product.

No it isn't.

Super Rugby is failing on almost any measure.

Quote:
Why would we want to be in a Comp with just Aus.

Why indeed ... but who really cares what NZ wants?

It's going to be a question of revenue.

When the financials don't stack up ... buh-bye Soup!


If or when South Africa are gone NZ at the moment are better off on their own than with Aus who bring nothing to the table. No viewers, no organisation, no investment in there own future and no money.

But please correct me as I would love to know what you guys are bringing to the table.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25724
maxbox wrote:
You just front up with that sweet Australian Kreuger rand Kiap and then we shall talk shop ;)


As I've said many times ... I'm more than happy for NZ teams to bypass Australia and play solely in Bloemfontein and Buenos Aires.

Fill your boots with that overrated currency and enjoy the 4 a.m. games.

Let's just see how long this tired old "soup" lasts, eh.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:27 am
Posts: 340
Location: Mostly in my own head
CrazyIslander wrote:
Zakar wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
naki wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
A few Aussie posters are underestimating how much the NZRU hate the ARU. If the ARU were to turn up at the doorstep with a gold egg laying geese and offered to share it. The NZRU will probably shoot it.


You don’t understand any of the players involved. You seem to thinking of the ‘battles’ of previous administrations, when they were actually CALLED the ARU and the NZRU.

NZR simply understand what ongoing contact with SA means both for rugby and financial reasons. A Transtasman comp, for all it’s benefits, is only ever going to be a last resort.

Why wouls it need be last resort? Hands down it should've been firsr option. It's an age old idea which NZRU have constantly poured cold water on. I reckon they've forgotten why they're against it.


The reason given by NZR why they're against just a TT comp, is because they rightly think the current system gives them an edge over the Bok. Gets players uses to the abrasive SA style and playing at altitude.

At the end of the day, NZR have to maintain a brand, and for kiwis that's the ABs being the best rugby team in the world. I wonder what would happen to rugby's popularity in NZ if they spent 15 years bouncing between 2nd and 5th.

Bullshit reason though.
When the ABs were bouncing between 2nd and 5th in the early 90s the Warriors became as big as the ABs, at least in Auckland.

Keep making up facts if you think it helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11628
Location: Spiritual Guardianland
kiap wrote:
maxbox wrote:
You just front up with that sweet Australian Kreuger rand Kiap and then we shall talk shop ;)


As I've said many times ... I'm more than happy for NZ teams to bypass Australia and play solely in Bloemfontein and Buenos Aires.

Fill your boots with that overrated currency and enjoy the 4 a.m. games.

Let's just see how long this tired old "soup" lasts, eh.


I know you are bud, just rustling your jimmies bro. Truth be told we cough cough need cough Australian cough money

Oh god I think a bit of blood fell out then


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25724
^heheh

Vahian wrote:
If or when South Africa are gone NZ at the moment are better off on their own

And I'm fine with that. Enjoy.

To be clear, when I say Super Rugby is f*cked, I'm talking about the worldwide regular season comp for club teams spanning half the year.

It's a loss maker and not sustainable. The time to cut the coat to suit the cloth is on its way.

However, there are still viable possibilities, IMO, including a much shorter, sharper champions league.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 10:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11628
Location: Spiritual Guardianland
I like the sound of a world series type thing, how about corporate sponsorship? The Emirates Crusaders has a good ring to it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 11:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Posts: 6179
Location: Stockholm
Very interesting article. I does not give me hope for the future though.

This is professionalism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 11:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12416
Vahian wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
Zakar wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
naki wrote:

You don’t understand any of the players involved. You seem to thinking of the ‘battles’ of previous administrations, when they were actually CALLED the ARU and the NZRU.

NZR simply understand what ongoing contact with SA means both for rugby and financial reasons. A Transtasman comp, for all it’s benefits, is only ever going to be a last resort.

Why wouls it need be last resort? Hands down it should've been firsr option. It's an age old idea which NZRU have constantly poured cold water on. I reckon they've forgotten why they're against it.


The reason given by NZR why they're against just a TT comp, is because they rightly think the current system gives them an edge over the Bok. Gets players uses to the abrasive SA style and playing at altitude.

At the end of the day, NZR have to maintain a brand, and for kiwis that's the ABs being the best rugby team in the world. I wonder what would happen to rugby's popularity in NZ if they spent 15 years bouncing between 2nd and 5th.

Bullshit reason though.
When the ABs were bouncing between 2nd and 5th in the early 90s the Warriors became as big as the ABs, at least in Auckland.

Keep making up facts if you think it helps.


Yes, indeed. Warriors debuted in '95.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 13145
What's the difference.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 9:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:27 am
Posts: 340
Location: Mostly in my own head
CrazyIslander wrote:
What's the difference.

I never knew Trump was a rugby fan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 2:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14277
grievous wrote:
Vahian wrote:
Why is it when Aussies come up with ideas to fix their rugby it nearly always involves New Zealand doing something that's non beneficial.

Oh...do list these please
NZRU have never got over Oz taking sole hosting rights in 03 and we know how Kiwis hold a grudge

What a load of bollocks, we had an awesome RWC in 2011, that likely wouldn't have happened if we'd co-hosted in 03.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 2:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6374
UncleFB wrote:
grievous wrote:
Vahian wrote:
Why is it when Aussies come up with ideas to fix their rugby it nearly always involves New Zealand doing something that's non beneficial.

Oh...do list these please
NZRU have never got over Oz taking sole hosting rights in 03 and we know how Kiwis hold a grudge

What a load of bollocks, we had an awesome RWC in 2011, that likely wouldn't have happened if we'd co-hosted in 03.


:nod: :nod:

Getting thrashed in a trans tasman comp wont help Australian rugby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 3:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:02 am
Posts: 2739
A Trans-Tasman competition between, say, 6 Kiwi franchises and 4 Australian might work, if there is free movement of players between franchises irrespective of nationality is allowed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 3:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5483
wamberal99 wrote:
A Trans-Tasman competition between, say, 6 Kiwi franchises and 4 Australian might work, if there is free movement of players between franchises irrespective of nationality is allowed.


And what makes you think the NZRU would want to let your coaches fudge up our players?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 3:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25724
Shrekles wrote:
wamberal99 wrote:
A Trans-Tasman competition between, say, 6 Kiwi franchises and 4 Australian might work, if there is free movement of players between franchises irrespective of nationality is allowed.


And what makes you think the NZRU would want to let your coaches fudge up our players?

That's right.

And by that reason there won't be a Trans-Tasman comp.

It's for the best on both sides that each go their own way for the majority of the time.

I'd suggest again a concise "Champions Cup" would then be the avenue for a few crossover club/franchise match-ups in a season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 3:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17513
kiap wrote:
Shrekles wrote:
wamberal99 wrote:
A Trans-Tasman competition between, say, 6 Kiwi franchises and 4 Australian might work, if there is free movement of players between franchises irrespective of nationality is allowed.


And what makes you think the NZRU would want to let your coaches fudge up our players?

That's right.

And by that reason there won't be a Trans-Tasman comp.


Why is increased player movement a pre-requisite for a TT comp? Surely it goes entirely against the need for elevated “tribalism” and local pride that almost everyone keeps banging on about to generate interest in these tournaments if a whole bunch of kiwis takeover in Sydney, or Folau, Hooper and Beale take a paycut to live in Dunedin or something?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 3:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18436
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
CrazyIslander wrote:
A few Aussie posters are underestimating how much the NZRU hate the ARU. If the ARU were to turn up at the doorstep with a gold egg laying geese and offered to share it. The NZRU will probably shoot it.


Is this hate what motivated the NZRU to throw the ARU a lifeline when the code was dying here in the early-mid 1970s?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 3:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25724
naki wrote:
kiap wrote:
Shrekles wrote:
wamberal99 wrote:
A Trans-Tasman competition between, say, 6 Kiwi franchises and 4 Australian might work, if there is free movement of players between franchises irrespective of nationality is allowed.


And what makes you think the NZRU would want to let your coaches fudge up our players?

That's right.

And by that reason there won't be a Trans-Tasman comp.


Why is increased player movement a pre-requisite for a TT comp? Surely it goes entirely against the need for elevated “tribalism” and local pride that almost everyone keeps banging on about to generate interest in these tournaments if a whole bunch of kiwis takeover in Sydney, or Folau, Hooper and Beale take a paycut to live in Dunedin or something?


It's not a prerequisite, but ex post facto flowing from the decline of Australian rugby and the failure of the Soup.

If all you do is slap the TT name on the same old comp (after booting the saffers) then it's still going fail.

(In case it's not clear, naki, I am not in favour of a Trans-Tasman comp). :)

It's time to split - except for add-ons; post-season matches.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 3:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34036
Location: Queensland
I wonder what negotiations are going on behind the scenes? I wonder what options RA and NZR are considering? Even if NZR was favourable towards a Trans Tasman comp it wouldn't be a bad negotiation strategy to approach it cautiously and try and maximise concessions from RA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 3:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25724
Ali's Choice wrote:
I wonder what negotiations are going on behind the scenes? I wonder what options RA and NZR are considering? Even if NZR was favourable towards a Trans Tasman comp it wouldn't be a bad negotiation strategy to approach it cautiously and try and maximise concessions from RA.


NZR are overrated. They've got great players, sure. But that's not enough to be the boss daddy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 4:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:02 am
Posts: 2739
Ali's Choice wrote:
I wonder what negotiations are going on behind the scenes? I wonder what options RA and NZR are considering? Even if NZR was favourable towards a Trans Tasman comp it wouldn't be a bad negotiation strategy to approach it cautiously and try and maximise concessions from RA.



Unless they actually care about the survival of the game here. If they do, they might try to maximise mutual benefits.


This is not a zero sum game, it is actually possible for both parties in a negotiation to maximise their own benefits.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 4:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 1539
wamberal99 wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
I wonder what negotiations are going on behind the scenes? I wonder what options RA and NZR are considering? Even if NZR was favourable towards a Trans Tasman comp it wouldn't be a bad negotiation strategy to approach it cautiously and try and maximise concessions from RA.



Unless they actually care about the survival of the game here. If they do, they might try to maximise mutual benefits.


This is not a zero sum game, it is actually possible for both parties in a negotiation to maximise their own benefits.


Of course they care. If we die, they will too. They will just become like what Brazil is to soccer. The All Blacks would still be pretty good, but all the players would be based in Europe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 4:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4554
NZR and RA are just going to have to get used to calling Twiggy Forrest “Daddy”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 5:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13679
Location: XPAT CUNT
Ali's Choice wrote:
I wonder what negotiations are going on behind the scenes? I wonder what options RA and NZR are considering? Even if NZR was favourable towards a Trans Tasman comp it wouldn't be a bad negotiation strategy to approach it cautiously and try and maximise concessions from RA.


I don't think there are many concessions RA could make


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 6:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11628
Location: Spiritual Guardianland
Sensible Steve O you are under estimating a lot of key All Blacks loyalty to mother NZ. Sure a lot would go to Europe, but a decent amount would stay and make the best of it..
:smug:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 7:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34036
Location: Queensland
Zakar wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
I wonder what negotiations are going on behind the scenes? I wonder what options RA and NZR are considering? Even if NZR was favourable towards a Trans Tasman comp it wouldn't be a bad negotiation strategy to approach it cautiously and try and maximise concessions from RA.


I don't think there are many concessions RA could make


It could just be in terms of the number of teams or the structure of the new board (assuming a new organisation would need to be created to run a Trans Tasman comp) or the inclusion of teams from the PI's, Arg, Japan etc? There would be plenty of details that would require negotiation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 8:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6056
Taranaki Snapper wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
A few Aussie posters are underestimating how much the NZRU hate the ARU. If the ARU were to turn up at the doorstep with a gold egg laying geese and offered to share it. The NZRU will probably shoot it.


Is this hate what motivated the NZRU to throw the ARU a lifeline when the code was dying here in the early-mid 1970s?


Most of those far sighted genleman have long popped their clogs to be replaced by other not so far sighted gentleman.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 8:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6056
maxbox wrote:
Sensible Steve O you are under estimating a lot of key All Blacks loyalty to mother NZ. Sure a lot would go to Europe, but a decent amount would stay and make the best of it..
:smug:


I think you may be overestimating it. Would they forgoe 5 million dollars given how relatively few earning playing years they have?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 8:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11628
Location: Spiritual Guardianland
I am probably not Bumboy Steve. Plenty of time to make that plus more post ABs. You know this m8 :nod:

Think of playing for the ABs as you would working on a resume :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 8:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6056
maxbox wrote:
I am probably not Bumboy Steve. Plenty of time to make that plus more post ABs. You know this m8 :nod:

Think of playing for the ABs as you would working on a resume :D


Sorry wankbox but I think you misunderstood (or maybe I did). I wouldnt think that an AB would forgo a four or five year AB as this is what gets him in the shop window so to speak. What I meant was that their NZ career would be shorter up to six years max then OS for 8 or so years. If they stayed for an extra 5 years in NZ and only had 3 years OS that extra 5 years would have an opportunity cost of 5 mill given the rate that European rugby income is going up. The issue is not now it is in 5 or 10 years if NZ (and us) dont have a plan where they can increase revenue to stay closely competitive with Europen salaries.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 9:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20848
shanky wrote:
Meanwhile, Bob Dwyer drops his lollies over Beale moving to Easts

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-unio ... 4zfqh.html

Playing the ‘we’ve helped the aboriginal community so he owes us’ is a bit of a low blow

You didn’t see us bitchin and moanin when Sean Maloney went to the Rats


Interesting business by Landrover the drop Dan Carter after his incident in Paris and sign up Beale who has driving convictions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11628
Location: Spiritual Guardianland
Brumbie_Steve wrote:
maxbox wrote:
I am probably not Bumboy Steve. Plenty of time to make that plus more post ABs. You know this m8 :nod:

Think of playing for the ABs as you would working on a resume :D


Sorry wankbox but I think you misunderstood (or maybe I did). I wouldnt think that an AB would forgo a four or five year AB as this is what gets him in the shop window so to speak. What I meant was that their NZ career would be shorter up to six years max then OS for 8 or so years. If they stayed for an extra 5 years in NZ and only had 3 years OS that extra 5 years would have an opportunity cost of 5 mill given the rate that European rugby income is going up. The issue is not now it is in 5 or 10 years if NZ (and us) dont have a plan where they can increase revenue to stay closely competitive with Europen salaries.


Well you guys best front up with the cash then because as per it looks like NZ is fcked again ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 406 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anonymous_joe, Bing [Bot], Diego, free_safety, Google Adsense [Bot], LandOTurk, Leinster in London, Liathroidigloine, mrbrownstone, nardol, Nolanator, Plato'sCave, SaintK, Santa, Still Playing, wilber, WoodlandsRFC, Xin and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group