Fox reporting Jack Williams is being targeted by PNG for 2028.
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
More stuff to read
"They will, question is by year 2 or 3 how many of those signings see it out."
"He's been on record saying he would never play against his dad again."
"The tax free money is great but this can still fail if the compound doesn't fit with what players and their family want. Some might get to the end of year 1 and think "stuff this I want out."
PNG could be a revolving door of players and it will…"
PNG could be a revolving door of players and it will…"
"Cut migration and reskill "everyone" on "welfare". Which skills? Who decides which skills? How do we decide those skills? Who pays for those skills?
Given this cure-all of cut migration and reskill has pinged exactly what to do, I'm sure you have…"
Given this cure-all of cut migration and reskill has pinged exactly what to do, I'm sure you have…"
Replies
Cut immigration and re-skill/upskill everyone on welfare - problem solved.
We'll be rolling in revenue. But no, we can't expect everyone who is physically capable to actually contribute to society now, can we?
Agreed Anguillidae, but that is common sense and unfortunately will not win votes.....you only need to see how many people receive welfare and also how many govt jobs have been made in the last few years to see where $$$ go. And that is votes. NDIS has been shown to have been rorted, and good old Bill Shorten is now gone and Vice Chancellor in Canberra.
Mitchy, it something wrong was said. Can you show the error in reasoning? Not just fall back on the rhetoric, but the actual error?
For instance, the IMF counts government subsidies as budget outlays. By the same logic you're calling for NDIS cuts, for example, why not cut the $10 billion per annum forked over to mining companies to lower their diesel costs?
So I'm just asking you to identify the error in the view that calls to "cut migration" or "cut government spending" is actially an over-generalization that is good rhetoric but fails to target specifically enough.
Cut migration and reskill "everyone" on "welfare". Which skills? Who decides which skills? How do we decide those skills? Who pays for those skills?
Given this cure-all of cut migration and reskill has pinged exactly what to do, I'm sure you have answers?
Also, "everyone on welfare". So reskill pensioners? Work all your life but, heh, damn migrants means you're 83 but gotta reskill and go to work? Family tax benefit? That's welfare so I guess that will be helped by reskilling who, the kids? Mothers working part time? Single parents? NDIS? Reskill those "on NDIS"? It's predominantly paying service workers for those with special needs. You don't think those service workers have skills? They need other skills? Which skills? Jobseeker. Income support while looking for work. I guess if talking reskilling job seekers you mean paying them to get skills? Also called Jobseeker.
I am mostly saying here that if the idea is good it would not be so vulnerable to straight mockery.
Agree it will be 'dad's army' roster, just like when Gold Coast came into the comp. I guess they're hoping by the 10th year, there will be some PNG players ready to step into NRL. Those 8-10 year olds now aspiring to one day play NRL. Its a real possibility given it is their national sport, unlike Melbourne who after all these years and all their successes, have fck all juniors come through. Perth will be the same as Melbourne. I'd rather a second NZ team over Perth.
I wonder if they could get a Farnworth or Walsh? At this stage they are getting players on back-end of their careers. Since they are announced now in the end of prime it looks good at the moment.
The issue of comparing Melbourne with Perth is Melbourne set their back room staff up so well and had the advantage of the Western Reds and Hunter Mariners folding therefore a big collection of players looking for contracts.
Who's paying the tax? If it's government, then that only needs a change of government to change the tax-free status.
The government of the day (regardless of the side) won't rip this up - it'll run the course for the 10 years now. Unless you're Trump diplomatic agreements run to term, regardless of governments changing. This is 100% locked in.
But after 10 years, if a new government, then we will see what happens.
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
of 15 Next