Re: Sam Burgess Union debut : Sun Aug 30, 2015 7:13 pm  

Dally wrote:

It is of course dreadful for rugby league. To think otherwise is stupid. A lot of British RL's major stars have came from RU in the past. Now that the best of our small talent pool goes to play another game or to play in Australia is dreadful for the British game, which is going backwards at a great rate of knots.

Of course losing SL stars to Union or the NRL is a bad thing. But my point was having already lost Burgess to Union last year it will be good for League if he now makes a success on the big stage which will raise the League profile in a major way. If he fails to impress then we get the bad publicity of yet another league player who they will report as not good enough to reach the grade in Union.

Re: Sam Burgess Union debut : Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:34 pm  

Juan Cornetto wrote:

Of course losing SL stars to Union or the NRL is a bad thing. But my point was having already lost Burgess to Union last year it will be good for League if he now makes a success on the big stage which will raise the League profile in a major way. If he fails to impress then we get the bad publicity of yet another league player who they will report as not good enough to reach the grade in Union.

I still don't see why his success would be of any benefit whatsover to RL. Will it generate new supporters or sponsrs? Of course not - they will be attracted to Union where he stars!

Re: Sam Burgess Union debut : Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:58 pm  

Dally wrote:

I still don't see why his success would be of any benefit whatsover to RL. Will it generate new supporters or sponsrs? Of course not - they will be attracted to Union where he stars!

Agreed.

Re: Sam Burgess Union debut : Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:43 am  

The 'benefit to league' stuff is horse manure. If he (or any other convert) does well, the only thing guaranteed to happen is more players lost to RL. It will not translate into a single extra spectator at a SL game, or more sponsorship money or any other actual tangible benefit. On the downside, England's RL team is massively weaker because our best forward (by some distance) isn't available. That's a tangible loss, as are the other converts to RU.

I'm having the same discussion with NFL fanboys re Jarryd Hayne. Loads of people oddly whooping it up for Hayne, but perhaps won't be so happy when the NFL starts picking up more players. About the best they can come up with is 'it makes league look good'. Wow. Are we so insecure we need a player to excel in a different sport to know that?

Re: Sam Burgess Union debut : Mon Aug 31, 2015 6:25 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

The 'benefit to league' stuff is horse manure. If he (or any other convert) does well, the only thing guaranteed to happen is more players lost to RL. It will not translate into a single extra spectator at a SL game, or more sponsorship money or any other actual tangible benefit. On the downside, England's RL team is massively weaker because our best forward (by some distance) isn't available. That's a tangible loss, as are the other converts to RU.

I'm having the same discussion with NFL fanboys re Jarryd Hayne. Loads of people oddly whooping it up for Hayne, but perhaps won't be so happy when the NFL starts picking up more players. About the best they can come up with is 'it makes league look good'. Wow. Are we so insecure we need a player to excel in a different sport to know that?

It seems there are many League supporters who are stuck in the past and are insecure enough to begrudge a fine rugby player success in his chosen future on the main international stage. Any publicity is good for a minority sport and any positive headline publicity that shows league produces outstanding players has to be good for our game. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of publicity principles.

To further suggest if Burgess is successful for England we will loose more players to Union is naive and an excuse for a failure to accept the real world. Since Union turned pro it has come on in leaps and bounds as a spectator sport and the 'Union product' now attracts serious investors and tv rights aound the globe. Do you seriously think that Union clubs will not be targetting League talent anyway? If League players are seen to be better than Union players you could argue that it would attract more youngsters to League to acquire those skills.

I am fortunate to appreciate both forms of rugby and have fond memories of seeing many of the Union greats who moved to League enhance our game at the highest level. Now the shoe is on the other foot and the big cheque book is with the Union boys we cannot just shout "foul" when their scouts come around.

League has to raise it's image if it is to survive and get away from this sort of small time thinking.

Re: Sam Burgess Union debut : Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:24 pm  

Juan Cornetto wrote:

It seems there are many League supporters who are stuck in the past and are insecure enough to begrudge a fine rugby player success in his chosen future on the main international stage. Any publicity is good for a minority sport and any positive headline publicity that shows league produces outstanding players has to be good for our game. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of publicity principles.

To further suggest if Burgess is successful for England we will loose more players to Union is naive and an excuse for a failure to accept the real world. Since Union turned pro it has come on in leaps and bounds as a spectator sport and the 'Union product' now attracts serious investors and tv rights aound the globe. Do you seriously think that Union clubs will not be targetting League talent anyway? If League players are seen to be better than Union players you could argue that it would attract more youngsters to League to acquire those skills.

I am fortunate to appreciate both forms of rugby and have fond memories of seeing many of the Union greats who moved to League enhance our game at the highest level. Now the shoe is on the other foot and the big cheque book is with the Union boys we cannot just shout "foul" when their scouts come around.

League has to raise it's image if it is to survive and get away from this sort of small time thinking..

Your missing the point completely. Is anyone really begrudging burgess or hayne in there new chosen careers.

I am have not read one convincing argument in this thread on how burgess playing in the union world cup will raise leagues profile. It won't raise rugby league's profile one bit. We have had other ex league players put on the England rugby union Jersey since Robinson and its not like it did anything for rugby league.

Do you think the ITV rugby union commentary team will tell its audience how league is great sport and its where burgess, falou, SBW learnt there skills so please go and watch it. I wouldn't expect them to do this so its totally illogical to think it would happen.

Have RU papers like the times suddenly decided that they have been wrong ignoring league and will now expand its coverage all because of Sam burgess?

You know they haven't and they won't do so in the future. They talk about Sam burgess because he is now a rugby union player.

When Sam burgess makes his return to rugby league you won't see his name mentioned in the papers like the times ever again.

Next you will be saying that Israel falou raises rugby league profile when playing first in the AFL and now playing union for the wallabies.

I think we all agree that rugby league has to raise its profile but if you are seriously telling me that by playing rugby union is one way of achieving this goal then I cannot agree with you.

If the ultimate goal for rugby league players is to play at Twickenham wearing a England union Jersey then why are we even bothering with rugby league as a sport.

Re: Sam Burgess Union debut : Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:19 pm  

Biggest waste of athletic talent I have ever seen. I hope they are Paying him a Motza because his job satisfaction must suck!

Re: Sam Burgess Union debut : Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:11 pm  

JB Down Under wrote:

Biggest waste of athletic talent I have ever seen. I hope they are Paying him a Motza because his job satisfaction must suck!

Hayne on a $100k retainer ATM will get paid a measly US$500k/year for his services (minimum wage) IF he gets into the 49'ers 53 man squad but already is being praised and talked about by everyone including the aussie press whom have him on headline news after his two preseason performances. Job satisfaction compared to Burgess must be hugely better right now but for a shed less coin!

Re: Sam Burgess Union debut : Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:16 pm  

knockersbumpMKII wrote:

Hayne on a $100k retainer ATM will get paid a measly US$500k/year for his services (minimum wage) if he gets into the 49'ers 53 man squad but already is being praised and talked about by everyone including the aussie press whom have him on headline news after his two preseason performances. Job satisfaction compared to Burgess must be hugely better right now but for a shed less coin!

I'm sure Sam will shed a tear and then wipe it away with a tenner. By the way....the Aussie press are bound to cover an Aussie abroad. We've got a kiwi in the NBA..... To read papers here you'd think he was bigger than Jordan

Re: Sam Burgess Union debut : Wed Sep 02, 2015 6:32 am  

My point Juan is that there is simply no upside whatsoever from Burgess playing RU, which was your original point.

The fact that RL needs to look to itself to stop players going to RU is valid, but a different point entirely.

I do think though that the more Lee Smiths/Chev Walkers that go to RU rather than Jason Robinsons, the less likely it is for individual RU clubs to risk big money on them. To me RU clubs are making the same mistake as many RL clubs did, signing star RL players without really looking at whether they are even likely to make good RU players. Sam Burgess will probably be a reasonable success in RU (getting to a WC as a centre after his club deciding he'll never make one is pretty good going), but will never have the sort of impact he had in RL. He's one of those players that screams RL.