Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JW." data-source="post: 453089" data-attributes="member: 53447">The domestic season runs from September to May. England (Or any national side for that matter just going to take England as an example) have to prepare for a RWC, train as a squad, warmup matches etc. They would not be able to play for there clubs before the RWC in October. So add another month of Club rugby lost, then the RWC would be the 20th of November? That would mean the players would be back training with there clubs by the start of December. (If they don&#039;t take a rest) That would mean a huge loss of playing time that year for there clubs, a huge dip in revenue for those clubs as not as many people come to watch them without there stars. It&#039;s not like the NH wouldn&#039;t lose a shitload of money on that, it&#039;s just that most of that loss the clubs deal for and as they are succesfull they can take that loss. Your system is wrong, seeing Rugby is a proffesional sport now the clubs should be run as a business.It&#039;s give and take, not just take because you can&#039;t sustain yourselfs. The way it&#039;s done now is an equal share of the load that is the RWC. Some just cope with it better than others, why should the NH take in extra losses, when the deal made is already even and fair?I might have overreacted by saying it was half a season ruined but it&#039;s not far off. The system as it is now isn&#039;t perfect far from it, but it is as fair as it can be on both parties.Agreed!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JW., post: 453089, member: 53447"] The domestic season runs from September to May. England (Or any national side for that matter just going to take England as an example) have to prepare for a RWC, train as a squad, warmup matches etc. They would not be able to play for there clubs before the RWC in October. So add another month of Club rugby lost, then the RWC would be the 20th of November? That would mean the players would be back training with there clubs by the start of December. (If they don't take a rest) That would mean a huge loss of playing time that year for there clubs, a huge dip in revenue for those clubs as not as many people come to watch them without there stars. It's not like the NH wouldn't lose a shitload of money on that, it's just that most of that loss the clubs deal for and as they are succesfull they can take that loss. Your system is wrong, seeing Rugby is a proffesional sport now the clubs should be run as a business. It's give and take, not just take because you can't sustain yourselfs. The way it's done now is an equal share of the load that is the RWC. Some just cope with it better than others, why should the NH take in extra losses, when the deal made is already even and fair? I might have overreacted by saying it was half a season ruined but it's not far off. The system as it is now isn't perfect far from it, but it is as fair as it can be on both parties. [COLOR=#222222][/COLOR] Agreed! [/QUOTE]

Verification