Roxxxy The Sex Robot

Where do I put this? Culture? Society, I guess.

Now lonely men with an IT bent have a new companion, Roxxxy the Sex Robot. She’s not quite in the league of John Connor’s protector, Cameron the Terminator from The Sarah Connor Chronicles and I doubt she’s much good at World of Warcraft, but I’m sure a few geeks will be shelling out several grand each.

My only question is: Can she pass the Turing test with her mouth full?

Gay Marriage

Those reading the SMH on 2 March, 2011 were treated to the penetrating insights of Helen Razer on gay marriage. Apparently the advancement of civil rights for homosexuals is the province of the progressive left, marriage is a conservative anachronism, so why should any gay people want to get married?

She makes a few serious points, however in an effort to combine analysis with “entertaining” writing, more detailed examination of a complex social issue gives way to flippancy masquerading as witticism.

Although it is the goal of the left that no group or type of relationship be privileged, many people do not share this view or see it as “progress”. There is no inherent reason why homosexuals seeking certain civil rights should support the generalized “progressive” ideology, in which any form of deemed social privilege must be overturned.

Many homosexuals don’t want big government. They want a strong preference for immigrants from modern, liberal, democratic societies, to maintain their hard won rights as much as anything. They don’t agree with the black armband version of Western history. They don’t support the pretence that we can’t criticize culturally derived behaviour such as Islamic homophobia because such criticism might be construed as racist.

They do want the civil right to get married and have their commitment treated by society in the same way as any other couple. What they want is what marriage represents for heterosexual couples in a modern, liberal society: the power to say for yourselves when your relationship has progressed to a level of mutual commitment beyond that of sharing a dwelling and a bed. They don’t want that distinction made by a politician, judge or public servant.

Ceremonies such as marriage represent a public announcement and recognition of a transition within one’s own life and within society. They are not compulsory and it is this choice which can give them great meaning. For many people, a formal marriage is not the same as sexual partners cohabiting, regardless of sexuality.

In the break-up of a relationship, conflict often ensues as to the entitlements and duties of each partner. If the institution of marriage disappears as a “privileged anachronism”, how will the seriousness of the relationship be determined if there are no children involved?

By a judge? A committee of progressives? Who will set the criteria?

Better, I suggest, to allow those involved a say in the matter.

The Sulman Prize Controversy

So the painting which won the 2011 Sulman Prize was decided by a single judge (Richard Bell), who tossed a coin. Now a lot of people are upset, not least the winner, there are charges the prize has been devalued and Edmund Capon is mounting a fairly flimsy defence of the process.

Clearly this is a serious fuck up: the Sulman is a major Australian art prize, instituted in 1936. The prize is administered by the Art Gallery of NSW and is therefore ultimately taxpayer funded, regardless of where the $20,000 prizemoney comes from. The public has a right to be angry if the competition is insulted by the judging process and a right to seek a sincere explanation and measures to stop a similar farce occurring in the future.

The Sulman has been won by Brett Whitely (twice), John Olsen and Tim Storrier (twice). It is a serious competition and judging needs to be taken seriously. You can’t have a single judge, whose cavalier attitude to the task seems to be: “Well, who can say whether one piece is better than another? It’s just a lottery of personal taste. It’s the process of the art that matters anyway.”

So who is responsible for this absurdity? Obviously the 11 trustees of the Art Gallery of NSW, who chose the judge. Such an important prize, with a rich tradition and you nongs choose only one judge, moreover a bloke known to be a loose cannon? The Sydney Morning Herald says the gallery trustees chose the judge on the advice of Edmund Capon, but I understand the trustees had Richard Bell as their preferred choice from a number of candidates and then asked Edmund Capon if he saw anything wrong with it. Edmund, you probably should have said “yes”, unless the other candidates were even less appropriate, in which case you should have suggested someone else.

However, the main question is: Why is there only one judge? Apparently there is the feeling this makes the award process more interesting. More random = more interesting? May you live in interesting times. Even American Idol has three judges.

Art criticism is mostly, but not wholly subjective. There are questions of technique, of the depth of the questions the work poses, of its innovation. An art prize jury needs a range of skills and experience to assess these more objective criteria, as well as to actively debate the subjective qualities of the works. This point should be obvious to trustees of the state art gallery, so a natural question then becomes: Who are these people? Well, here are the 11.

Some are business people who may be combining an interest in the arts with an entry on their social CV, but there are enough artists and art collectors in the 11 to have made a more sensible choice than this. The contribution of the business people and the professor should have at least been to question the risk of having the decision made by a single, controversial artist.

Many people are by now questioning whether Richard Bell is qualified to judge the Sulman Prize at all. On the basis of his attitude, clearly not, but I suggest that on the basis of his work, asking him to sit on a prize jury is quite reasonable.

Here is a good collection of his artwork. His painting Scientia E Metaphysica (Bell’s Theorem), which won the 2003 National ATSIC Art Award is accompanied by a serious and well written essay. The piece posits that “Aboriginal Art” is a Western construct which demeans the art with the “ethnographic” tag, whereas it should be seen as abstract expressionism; an “ism” giving Western work more philosophical credibility. I like the juxtaposition of the Jackson Pollock style drip painting over his modernist rectangles, which I guess are meant to represent a modern “Aboriginal” style. Why is Pollock’s drip painting abstract expressionism while dot paintings are in the ethnographic category? How modernist does a painting by an Aboriginal painter, using Aboriginal style motifs have to be before it is classified as abstract expressionism and not “Aboriginal art”? That the piece poses these questions and poses them well is sufficient to validate its worth as art. It’s not a masterpiece, but clearly a serious work.

Bell has developed this theme in multiple pieces, which is what artists do, but in this case, I think none of them have the impact and interrogative depth of Scientia E Metaphysica.

He has developed another theme: paraphrasing of Roy Liechtenstein works, with the content of the speech bubbles altered to be personal eg. “Richard”, “black man” and the colour of the man’s face changed to brown. Here is a good example of the original and Richard Bell’s piece. These are more playful. I don’t like that word but flippant is not correct because their content is serious. They are however, highly derivative (perhaps an homage) and don’t require much effort to produce.

So, given the above, Bell is not a master, but certainly a serious artist with the ability to engage in sophisticated discussion of his work. I’d say this qualifies him to judge other art. Which is why his lazy, smart-arsed attitude of “I was tempted to put in all animals. I was going to make that the criterion, but I had to choose some of my friends” and “It’s a lottery anyway” are so disappointing.

Perhaps next time one of his works sells, the price can be chosen by a random number generator. How would that fit in with your philosophy, smart arse?

Dysfunctional Politics and Political Career Paths

On 18 Aug 2010, the Sydney Morning Herald published an article entitled “Paths to Politics” (unfortunately I can’t find a link to it). The most disturbing statistic in the article is the proportion of politicians whose career path has been student politician, union administrator and / or political staffer, MP ie. have never been employed in the real world prior to entering parliament. The figure quoted for the ALP (who pioneered the practice) is at least two thirds, but the Liberals appear to be trying hard to catch up.

MPs are often accused of having (a) no business acumen, (b) little capacity for innovative problem solving and (c) no idea of most people’s needs and priorities in life. The scientific and technical knowledge of most MPs is appalling. Looking at their career paths, it is little wonder.

Harking back to when “everyman” could enter parliament is not the answer either.

There are only two real qualifications needed to enter parliament in Australia (and most Western countries):

1.      Joining the ALP or Libs and following the career path above. If you’re really unlikeable and not a good choice to contest a lower house seat, they’ll put you number 1 or 2 on the senate ticket.

2.      Popularity amongst members of a sectional interest group can get you elected to the senate eg.The Greens, The Shooters, Steve Fielding, Fred Nile, Pauline Hanson.

Of course there are people who enter parliament as a member of the Libs, Nats or ALP who have had successful careers in other fields and do not fit into either of the above categories. Malcolm Turnbull is a current example. There are also independents who get elected because they are strong local candidates running on local issues (which many would say is what MPs are meant to do). Tony Windsor, Bob Katter and Ted Mack are examples, although the first two were long time Nats before becoming independents.

My point is that the above two paths are sufficient to be elected. I’m not saying they are necessary. The problem is, their sufficiency has resulted in many MPs who are incompetent.

The abject floundering of Victorian Family First senator Steve Fielding on the issue of climate change is a good example.

Here’s a transcript of an ABC interview which makes him seem like Isaac Newton compared to some of his confused utterances on the subject. His approach, like that of many politicians, seems to be to ask for the issues to be explained to him and then he’ll make a decision. The problem is that he is apparently incapable of reasoning out the issues by himself and so chooses to believe the claims of people with whom he identifies for other reasons, probably because the Christian Right in the US don’t accept climate change … more because they perceive climate change to be an issue of the left rather than due to a capable analysis and refutation of the science.

I recall a 30 second grab of Steve Fielding on the nightly news where he said he wanted the issues around climate change explained to him in “a way the average person can understand”. It’s complex science, you fool. If most people could understand the issues, we would have recognized and solved the problems years ago.

At least in the two major parties, there is the possibility of some synthesis of the limited knowledge and understanding of some MPs into a vaguely sensible collective decision. Sometimes it even happens. But with a lone dipshit or a small number of clowns from a minor party, what hope is there of even this occurring?

Parliaments are riddled with members who have neither the education nor the intellectual capacity to understand or manage complex issues like the economy or climate change. In the major parties, society is mostly, but not always protected from such individuals by the back benches and party unity. However, there is no such protection from the minor parties and independents: they often hold the balance of power.

It is not acceptable for a politician to ask for complex issues to be explained to them in a way that the “average person” can understand. If this could easily be done, the issues wouldn’t be complex, would they?

The lack of necessary qualifications to enter parliament is a serious flaw in our implementation of parliamentary democracy. Why are extensive qualifications required for every important, difficult job bar one: governing the country? This is a job for highly educated, intelligent, open minded people with diverse life experience, not self serving careerists or well (or not) intentioned dimwits pushing a particular religious or political agenda.

Shooters and Elephants

In the papers on 12 April were several articles about the Shooters’ Party and their request for hunting to be allowed in NSW national parks. Accompanying one was a picture of Robert Borsak (Shooters’ Party MLC) next to an elephant he had just shot and looking very proud of himself. The stupid prick has even posted a whole gallery of pictures. (Edit - I had a link, but it's now broken. He appears to have taken many of his pics down. Here's a salient example of the arsehole and his work).

Good effort, you fucking dickhead! Why did you feel the need to kill it? You look like an absolute idiot, standing there next to your handiwork.

I suppose you think it an unreasonable imposition on your freedom to be denied the right to shoot a big animal for pleasure. Well it’s not. If some hungry Africans had killed it for food, then fair enough, but you killed it for fun, with no regard for its right to live … and don’t pretend that it was all OK because some Africans ate it later.

A measure of a society is the way it treats animals. Humans evolved to eat meat and it’s not unreasonable for an open, liberal society to farm animals for their meat and skins, as long as they are not neglected and abused.

The civil rights of citizens come directly from the structure and strength of their society. It is reasonable that a strong and open society agrees to certain civil rights for the animals under its care. This goes right to the heart of the interpretation of the principles of Liberalism: do we really believe that animals have zero right to even a fraction of the liberties and protections we claim for ourselves? I do not.

The animal rights argument originated on the far left of politics (and Peter Singer is as loony left as they come), but that doesn’t mean it should stay there. Not everything the left says is crap (a lot of it is, but not all). The idea of animal rights should be openly debated, without the shrill polemic of the anti-fur lobby and without the hijacking of libertarianism by the gun lobby.

Very few would suggest equality for animals, but there is a middle ground and a mature, open society should recognize it: you can kill animals for food and skins or in self defence, but not for pleasure.

The argument that elephants are growing in numbers and need to be culled appears to be self serving bullshit. Elephant populations are not as stable as some vested interests might have us believe. The only region where their population appears to be stable and well managed is southern Africa.

Farmers shoot foxes and rabbits because they are pests. I can understand some degree of satisfaction from an accurate, clean shot, or from a sizeable haul of skins for sale, however the shooting is done as part of earning a living.

I can also understand a sniper feeling satisfaction at shooting an enemy during war, helping save the lives of his comrades.

But what sort of person derives pleasure from shooting an elephant for sport?

It seems a rather expensive cure for erectile dysfunction.

Soccer

I don’t play soccer.

I played for one season in the under 8’s before moving to rugby. Other than that, I played it in house sports in 3^rd and 4^th grade at primary school.

I played up front and it was fun scoring goals, but I just couldn’t prefer a game where you can’t knock someone over if they were poncing about with the ball. It’s a soft game: the kind of sport you expect to be played by slippery continentals.

I like to watch the top English Premier League or Italian Serie A sides sometimes; that’s mainly because I just like watching sport when I want to relax mentally.

I always watch the World Cup because I like seeing all the different teams and watching the competition unfold.

Given that I’ve never seriously played soccer and therefore don’t understand the intricacies of the game play and tactics, any criticisms I have of the game are from an outsider’s perspective. Those who play the game may find them worthless. The only opinion I have on soccer which I’m absolutely confident is true is that it’s a game for, in Johnny Warren’s words: “sheilas, wogs and poofters”.

Making It Too Hard To Score Creates Perverse Results

The most obvious problem an outsider sees with the game is that it’s too hard to score. The primary evidence for this is statistical: the unreasonably high proportion of games where the result does not reflect the overall story of the game.

In any sport, I believe a fundamental principle should be that the results are “correct” representations of the games played, at least the overwhelming majority of times. Of course, there will be the odd win against the run of play. That’s OK: people can accept that as long as the proportion of such games doesn’t extend beyond interesting accidents.

But that’s not what happens in soccer. It is often the case where one side has been dominant for the majority of the game, but ends up with a 1-1 draw, or even losing 1-0.

Friends of mine who play and support soccer say “Yes, but that’s part of the game. It’s partly physical, partly chess match. A team who doesn’t have the attacking flair can choose to sit back and defend, blunting the opponent’s attack and waiting for overcommitment and an opportunity for a long ball counter attack. It’s the attacker’s job to unlock the defence and score.”

That actually sounds quite reasonable: a battle between two opposing strategies. I have often used this defensive tactic against a strong chess opponent. My initial response is to think: ”OK, fair enough, if that’s how the game is structured and people who play it are happy, who am I to question it? I wouldn’t want to play it, but I’m not forced to.”

But those same friends agree that the type of results we’re talking about aren’t reflective of the flow of the game from their perspective either. Having played the game, the majority of them believe that many of these results are travesties. They put them down to a combination of bad refereeing, bad luck through near misses and an inability to crack the last line of defence. They seem to be saying it’s too easy for a less skilled side to defend and too hard for an obviously more skilled side who clearly controls the majority of the time and space to register points. Doesn’t that tell you something? Players and fans don’t think many of the results are “correct” representations of the game they have just watched.

There’s also the issue about who is interpreting the “story” of the game. If it’s me, well maybe the chess match part just doesn’t appeal to me. I play chess and appreciate a good defensive strategy, but soccer is meant to be a physical game.

Are the “stories” of the games in question really ones of a skilled defence successfully luring an attacker into a mistake and then capitalizing with quick counterplay?

Or is the true story one of a side more skilled in most facets of the game being stymied by a defensive underdog because it’s too easy to defend?

Examples

Let’s look at a few examples from recent World Cups. Here I’m only considering travesties where the result was “wrong”. There are many more examples where the “right” team ended up winning, but only 1-0, when a proper reflection would have been 3-0 or 4-0.

1.      2010: Spain losing 1-0 to Switzerland is the most egregious example. What a fucking joke that was!

I watched this match. Spain controlled the vast majority of the game. They didn’t just keep getting down to the Swiss 18 yard box only to be dispossessed. There were many legitimate attempts to score which the Swiss were unable to prevent. Even the TV commentators said Spain were clearly all over Switzerland for most of the game. They didn’t seem to have interpreted the game as a more or less equal battle between attack and defence.

For all their touted quality, the Spanish forwards had a few pretty bad misses, so it’s partly their fault they lost. But in pretty much any other sport, such genuine dominance would have been converted into enough points to ensure at least a tight win.

2.      2010: Italy draws 1-1 with New Zealand.

Many people might say this is a churlish example and NZ deserved the draw. There were charges that Shane Smelz who scored the NZ goal was offside. This really comes down to whether or not you think the NZ player got a touch on the ball with his head as it was coming through to Smelz. I reckon NZ should get the benefit of the doubt. Certainly more so than Italy deserve for the dive that got them the penalty for the equalizer.

But for most of the match, Italy dominated. They hit the post with a shot and should have been able to manufacture a couple more goals with all the dominance they had in midfield.

Their strikers played for the most part poorly, so they didn’t deserve anything more than scraping a win. But seriously, any team in that much control of a rugby league, union, tennis or cricket game would almost certainly have won.

3.      2002: Italy loses 2-1 in extra time to S Korea in the round of 16.

I watched this game too. There is no way 1-1 after 90 min was a reflection of the game. Italy should have had at least 2 more goals. Admittedly, it was largely their own fault through bad misses in front of the goal. Christian Vieri’s was a shocker. Even so, S Korea did not deserve to win this.

4.      2002: Spain loses on penalties to S Korea in the quarter final after finishing 0-0.

If there was any justice, Spain would have been playing Italy, then the winner going on to play Germany. S Korea were clearly an inferior side to Spain. Not just in general ability; they were also mostly outplayed on the day. A just game would have Spain with sufficient opportunity to score and win. S Korea were not a side deserving of playing in a world cup semi final.

I’ve seen similar outcomes happen to Man U in the premier league quite a few times as well.

Are these results reasonable? Is this what soccer fans are happy to see? Apparently not if the reactions of soccer fans I know mean anything.

Penalty Shootouts

I reckon these are just fucking stupid. A lot of soccer fans I know agree to some extent. Even some professionals: commentators, players and coaches have all been quoted as asking for debate on alternative methods of obtaining a result after a draw.

Penalty shootouts aren’t exactly a coin toss, because a better team should have better goal shooters and a better goal keeper, but there is still a lot of luck in it. More like a 60-40 lottery than 50-50, but still bullshit after playing 120 minutes of actual soccer.

The most common alternative suggestion seems to be that each team takes off one player after each 5 or 10 minutes of extra time. I’d like to see this: it would open up the game and create a different kind of tension to penalties. I reckon Spain would have beaten S Korea in 2002 if this system had been in place. Maybe they would have then beaten Germany. Brazil vs Spain probably would have been a better final.

Can A Game Loved By So Many People Still Be Shit?

Of course it can! Enormous numbers of people bought the single Achy Breaky Heart, so many that it sold over 1,000,000 copies in the US alone. But it is an execrable song. Just absolutely, fucking appallingly bad.

The simple fact is that most people are idiots. They like shit things because they are too dumb and lazy to expend the intellectual effort on something more sophisticated.

Cricket

Some people might bring up the example of cricket, where a weaker side can grind out a draw on a flat wicket or be lucky enough to bowl first on a damp wicket which then flattens out and allows them to put on a big total.

Now cricket is without doubt one of the greatest games ever invented. So how come such situations are acceptable in cricket but not in soccer?

Well, in the case of a draw on a flat wicket, that’s not acceptable: that’s bad preparation by the groundsman. It’s not how the game is meant to be. Any cricket player will agree. Any pitch should be prepared so you are able to get a result out of it if you bowl well.

In the case of a wet pitch, that’s one downside of the game, because the result between two reasonably evenly matched teams is heavily influenced by the toss. This is just bad luck with the weather. It’s different to playing footy in a downpour, where the rain is a leveler for attacking sides, but still uncontrollable.

The point is, such situations in cricket and rugby are caused by bad weather. Our soccer examples can happen in any weather.

How Could It Be Made Easier To Score?

Bigger Goals

Well, make the goals bigger for a start. The current soccer goal is 8 feet high and 24 feet wide.

Suppose you made them 12 or 18 inches higher and wider on each side. How many shots have hit the post or crossbar that would have been goals?

Interestingly, the 2010 World Cup round of 16 game between Uruguay and S Korea would have finished 2-2 instead of 2-1 Uruguay because S Korea hit the post with a free kick in the first half. We could then have gone to the reducing players extra time method for an exciting finish.

Two Goal Types

Put another goal above the crossbar, say 3 or 4 feet high and the same width, or maybe 12, 16 or 18 feet wide. You score 1 point if you kick it through there and 3 (or even 4 or 6) if you kick it through the normal goal, a bit like Gaelic football.

Now this could very easily lead to more long shots, say from 30 or 40 metres out, but is that so bad? It probably is if people start doing it all the time and don’t try to get in close and score the 3 points. Calibrating the height of the 1 point net would help control this. Maybe make it 2 feet high and 12 feet wide so players need to get close enough to have a reasonable chance of a successful 1 point shot.

Such a scheme would of course radically alter the entire concept of the game, but it’s a shit game anyway, so why not make it better by having higher scoring results? What’s wrong with a score of Brazil 2-7-13 b Portugal 1-8-11? At least the crowd would have plenty of scoring shots to cheer about, which might stop them throwing flares onto the field.

Change The Offside Rule

Maybe. Although apparently this would lead to one or more attackers standing next to the opposition goalkeeper and waiting for a long ball to be kicked in. This could get very boring very quickly, like in rugby league where almost every 6^th tackle play close to the opposition tryline is a grubber kick or bomb. Boring crap.

What Else Could Be Done?

Get Rid Of Penalty Shootouts

As discussed above, these are a moronic and wholly unsatisfying end to a game which has usually been tense and interesting because it has just ended in a draw after extra time (so presumably at least one team was trying to win).

Each team takes one player off after every 5 min of extra time.

Stop Paying Dives

Italy will never get beyond the quarter finals of another World Cup, but this habit of absurdly theatrical diving needs to be stamped out.

How typical of soccer that they use the euphemism “simulation”. Call it diving – it’s such a slippery form of cheating. Roughing someone up is cheating too, but diving is the sort of gutless, slimy cheating that makes people look down on the game.

I can’t believe the referees fall for it so often … and the feigned hysterics bunged on by the perpetrators, especially if the penalty is not awarded! You only have to look at the cultures where soccer is popular and the way most of them behave in life to predict which countries will be the divers.

I remember seeing Australia knocked out of the 1998 World Cup qualifiers in the final match in Melbourne. It finished 2-2, but Iran went through on away goals. Australia were all over Iran for most of the match and should have won, but that’s not my point here.

In the 2^nd half, Harry Kewell came running through and tried to head a ball before it got to the keeper. He jumped in the air, failed to make contact and landed about a foot in front of the Iranian keeper, who caught it and promptly fell onto the ground, rolling about in fake agony. Being deliberately offside or handling the ball is one type of cheating, but lying to get an innocent person into trouble – that’s a type of sliminess you see a lot in many parts of the world and not a whole lot in places like Australia … and they wonder why so many of us look down on them.

When Harry Kewell said what I guess were words to the effect of “you slimy bloody cheating wog” to the keeper, he started waving his finger as if to say “don’t you call me a cheat”. You are a cheat mate ... a greasy, slimy, gutless cheat.

The stupid referee gave Kewell a yellow card(?), with theatrical indignation at his apparent “bad sportsmanship”.

You dumb fuck – did it not occur to you that the Iranian might be lying? It’s just so rare in that part of the world isn’t it?

Rivaldo’s dive in the 2002 World Cup against Turkey(?) is another of the more dodgy examples I can think of. Rivaldo was waiting to be given the ball for a throw in. The Turkish player was pissed off at him and kicked the ball at him, which hit him in the knee. Rivaldo immediately fell over, holding his head in feigned pain.

These are two of the slimiest examples I can remember; there are a whole lot more “trips” or “pushes” in the 18 yard box. The countries who do it as a regular tactic are somewhat surprisingly countries where lying, cheating and false accusations are commonplace in social interaction. Since quite a few of these countries are powerful members of FIFA, I wonder if the attempts to stamp out “simulation” will be any more than tokenistic.

NRL Salary Cap

When the Australian national rugby league (NRL) competition incorporated in 1998, it inherited a salary cap system from the old NSWRL (introduced in 1990). The current system is explained here.

It seems the salary cap has two primary objectives: to keep clubs solvent and to prevent a situation of vast wealth disparity and almost permanent domination like in English soccer.  These are reasonable goals, however the ignorant rules and their apparently high handed, unconsultative application has left the NRL open to charges that the current salary cap regime is an inflexible, destructive system which has the perverse outcome of artificially breaking up good sides.

There are two things above all others that fans do not want to see: clubs going broke and clubs being broken up.

It is possible to have a salary cap system which goes much further than the current one toward maintaining the solvency requirement, while concurrently achieving a much better balance between the fan requirements of allowing good teams to stay together, but not allowing wealthy clubs to dominate for decades.

The first “pillar” of the policy should be to impose maximum debt to equity ratios. For example, not allow clubs to incur debt of more than 50% of their assets.

The second is to keep the principle of the salary cap while tuning its calculation to allow teams to stay together and reward player loyalty. One way is to allow discounts for length of service.

In 2003, the NRL introduced a “long serving player allowance”, at the time allowing an extra $100,000 in total payments to be made to players with more than 10 years service (with that club). That’s really just a token concession and does nothing for clubs with a few Australian or state representatives who have been there 7 or 8 years. If a club is well managed and can earn enough income to keep a swag of representative players for several years without going beyond the debt to equity limit, why should this not be allowed? Why is it bad if one or two teams are in the grand final for 5 years in a row? Who begrudged Souths and St.George their success in the 50’s and 60’s? Is the NRL now being run by hard line socialists?

A team could discount 10% of a player’s salary for every year above 3 they had played with that club. For example, if a player is paid $200,000 and has played 7 seasons, the club receives a 40% discount. Only $120,000 counts toward the salary cap. Salaries of players with 13 seasons with the one club are exempt.

Thirdly, players should be paid separately (and well) by the NRL for rep games.

With limits on clubs’ debt, this strikes a balance between sound financial management, tradition, history and player loyalty and preventing situations like in European soccer.

Football fans do not want to see successful teams artificially broken up. Who wants to see a club icon finish their career with another team because of an ill conceived salary cap?

Fans don’t have a problem with team dynasties. The St.George-Souths rivalry of the 50’s and 60’s or the Manly-Parramatta rivalry of the late 70’s and early 80’s are a great part of the game and its history.

I recall the ad: “7 premiers in the last 8 years … who will be next?”

If it’s a lottery, who cares?