I think it's a 50/50 game. Overall ability pretty even, home advantage with Scotland, momentum with Australia. Won't be more than 5 in it either way.
Probably because they didn't expect any Australians would bother watchingHonestly, though, why do they schedule our matches on a ******* Monday morning?
Yeah probably not far off the mark there.Probably because they didn't expect any Australians would bother watching
Should have to pay transfer feesAlso lol at Scotland rolling out the offcuts from other countries development programs. Grow your own players you dumb fucks.
Isn't half of the Australian population the results of offcuts mainly from Europe.Also lol at Scotland rolling out the offcuts from other countries development programs. Grow your own players you dumb fucks.
I'd say much more than half are of European ancestry, yeah. I guess moving to a new continent forced us to figure out how to develop our own ******* rugby players.Isn't half of the Australian population the results of offcuts mainly from Europe.
Scotland's population has been declining since the 1980s.I'd say much more than half are of European ancestry, yeah. I guess moving to a new continent forced us to figure out how to develop our own ******* rugby players.
You mean the countries that spent all the resources developing them?Scotland's population has been declining since the 1980s.
They don't develop enough players at home and it hurts them but not using their diaspora would be negligent. The countries with large immigration will always benefit more regardless of eligibility laws.
And their population has grown by 2 million since the 80s.You mean the countries that spent all the resources developing them?
Seems to me NZ do just fine developing talent with a small pop.
Clearly not enough economic difficulties to pay overs for other countries developed talent.And their population has grown by 2 million since the 80s.
A declining population is an indicator of numerous economic difficulties that mean investment in sport is generally pretty low on the list of priorities, especially a secondary one in terms of responsibility.
I don't like Scottish rugby one bit but they're living on scraps compared to other t1 nations.
It's a different investment. One allows them to continue filling out Murrayfield and Scotstoun and keep rugby relevant.Clearly not enough economic difficulties to pay overs for other countries developed talent.
Sounds like a good, sound investment strategy sure to bring in sustained viability. After all, everyone knows investing in the foundations of a business is a sure fire way to go bankrupt.It's a different investment. One allows them to continue filling out Murrayfield and Scotstoun and keep rugby relevant.
The opportunity cost is developing players. Invest it in grassroots and pathways and the game will be dying in Scotland before they can benefit.
Investing in a long term cash pit with no guaranteed reward is what you're suggesting.Sounds like a good, sound investment strategy sure to bring in sustained viability. After all, everyone knows investing in the foundations of a business is a sure fire way to go bankrupt.