I wonder how many Rugby League players they are also looking at :rofl:
I wonder how many Rugby League players they are also looking at :rofl:
Exactly. I would love nothing more than for DHP to show him whats what when he comes to Perth next year. He'll regret he ever left this awesome team! :force:
Hehe. Normal affection belongs to normal-blue-Drew, not poofy-tah-baby-blue-Drew. :)
get over it.... you've got DHP... Shep and Cummins... stop bitching about Lote and Mitchell, girls...
You should be complaining you've still got Haig Sare...
Actually, I think a lot of us are complaining we've still got you, Muddie. :)
yeah Hunts gone, screw NRL players, the only NRL players that should be targetted are the former schoolboy rugby players, even then they need to be signed before they are left in the nrl to long and tainted.
IMO, rugby union should only sign NRL players 21 and under and who are former schoolboy players, that should be a guidline set out.
i can see where you're comming from TOCC.
but what happens if the player in question really doesnt want to play leauge anymore, and thinks union is more of a challenge? (it could open the door to more SBW episodes, whether they are at the end of a contract or have 2 years left) or vice versa. australian union is going to make one rule australian leauge should follow. that kind of rule could benifit both codes. but as with everything there is drawbacks involved as well
---------- Post added at 20:09 ---------- Previous post was at 20:00 ----------
i think i might have garbled that a bit.
my point was that as it stands that rule could potentially have some merit. but what happens if mid career a player from either code wants a change(as people sometimes do during their working life)? they are locked into a leauge they potentially no longer want to be involved with. they would then face a legal battle, payout situation or some other manner of proceedings before they could make the change they are seeking.
if either leauge can only contract players under 21, and at say 26 or so a player wants to swap. they could potentially be forced to remain in their leauge or retire before they are finished because they are legally unable to switch.
does that make more sense?
I understand where you're going Jono, but it would be political suicide to put any hard and fast rules in place to govern it. There would be too much chance of restriction of trade lawsuits and such like.
It'd be more likely that the ARU would make it a guideline for all Wallaby contracted convertsto fit within certain criteria which would essentially mean that Leaguies can't just waltz into the national side based upon a reputation gained in the other code, since it seems reputations don't follw you across.
If, say the contracting protocol for an ARU top up required a full season of Super 14 or at least a player being contracted to a S14 team for a year before being offered an ARU top up.....that'd fix a lot of the problem, since the player would need to prove themself in the provincial game before hitting the Wallabies squad.