In The Zone - The End

I have banned N-Bomb for 24 hours for disagreeing with opinions and sentiments being posted here by others.

Yeah from the link posted above I thought it was reasonably balanced.

It's a classic editorial in some sense - trying to show points and cons, trying not to be overly controversial while still talking about a major news topic - it's usually the opinion of one writer, so whether it's pro-Phoenix or anti-Nix, it's a bit of a brush to label it fully as the Dom Post's viewpoint.

From this I have no problems with it - it shows pro-Petone ideas, from the mayor, Gareth etc, and then tells us what critics think too, it somewhat blandly doesn't come to any conclusion, definitely wouldn't class it as pro or anti Nix at all. 

I could go on but I feel nobody will agree with me anyway, just my take from the outside.

Would love to here what wgtn rugby have to say on the matter. I imagine they could swing the uninformed public opinion either way.

One of their favourite "sons" already has.

Yeah from the link posted above I thought it was reasonably balanced.

It's a classic editorial in some sense - trying to show points and cons, trying not to be overly controversial while still talking about a major news topic - it's usually the opinion of one writer, so whether it's pro-Phoenix or anti-Nix, it's a bit of a brush to label it fully as the Dom Post's viewpoint.

From this I have no problems with it - it shows pro-Petone ideas, from the mayor, Gareth etc, and then tells us what critics think too, it somewhat blandly doesn't come to any conclusion, definitely wouldn't class it as pro or anti Nix at all. 

I could go on but I feel nobody will agree with me anyway, just my take from the outside.

Think you are trying to hard. Or not hard enough.

Here is a quote: 

The stadium could be used for other stuff like... "concerts, events, club rugby, Team Wellington...and even Hurricanes games. If that was so, then the Petone stadium would undoubtedly be an asset. But a detailed business case needs to be made to support these claims. The project should be baswed on hard-headed calculation rather than the self-interested claims of a soccer team seeking subsidies. Nor should it be based on local political enthusiasm. Politicians, after all, are usually keen to build monuments."

That is the penultimate paragraph. Not much balance there. 

They're using a classic editorial trick, say something unarguable and follow it with something totally bullshit, and the two cancel each other out.

"But a detailed business case needs to be made to support these claims." That's totally reasonable. I'm nodding in agreement.

"The project should [not] be based on...the self-interested claims of a soccer team seeking subsidies." That is not only unbalanced but totally factually inaccurate. 

The construction tricks you, you're left thinking "yeah, you're right there must be a detailed business case so that the soccer team seeking subsidies doesn't railroad the whole thing through."

To write with balance, you've got to write the whole piece with balance. 

Andy Leslie?

But the Lions are not. Here's a chancefor them to make a change to the playing field rather than being stood over with a take it or leave it offer.

They know who butters their bread. Going alone vs Hurricanes and NZRFU is simply not an option for them.

 

What gives you the impression that the NZRFU or Hurricanes would pressure them into staying at Westpac? 

I suspect anything that makes a union more financially viable would get the support of the NZRFU. It would also enhance club rugby as a "spectator product". 

So Ive also crunched some numbers from the stadiums website, and over the 5 rounds of ITM cup in 2013, they average 4283, and if you include the semi and final it only goes increases to 6183. Now those are bad numbers for rugby heads. That's worse than us!?!(which makes me happy to no end). I feel if a good business model was made to Wgtn Rugby, movement could be made. NZRFU are as money hungry as any other national body, even with their sponsorship deals.

this, also it give them a potential chance to keep a home game while moving a home game, without having to give it to P.North(not offense P.North). In addition, playing against lower ranked teams at a smaller stadium would save costs surely. And we have seen over the past few years how rugby regions are losing money and needing to be cashed up by others to survive( ie. Otago)

So Ive also crunched some numbers from the stadiums website, and over the 5 rounds of ITM cup in 2013, they average 4283, and if you include the semi and final it only goes increases to 6183. Now those are bad numbers for rugby heads. That's worse than us!?!(which makes me happy to no end). I feel if a good business model was made to Wgtn Rugby, movement could be made. NZRFU are as money hungry as any other national body, even with their sponsorship deals.

thoughts?

(sorry mods, I also accidentally reported this post,)

 

It was the most extensive post report we've ever had. I was quite confuzzled.

And yes, we do make our own automatic emails refer to us as "Overlords". Cos, well, we can.

Interesting the banter about the quick free kick from Engelaar as I thought the same thing as Dale. Ref should have brought it back given how far forward it was.

Would have given us a major advantage if they brought it back.

Well no, it just wouldn't have given them a major advantage

Interesting.

I always work on a formula that if it's in the defensive half, get the ball down and get going because you are most unlikely to see a goal scored from the defensive half and players want to get on with it with out the referee being a hand brake in a part of the field that's not going to see action attacking action.

In the attacking half, where inches become a difference especially in light of specialist free kick takers, we get it on the spot. A quick free kick in the attacking half, I'll give latitude if 3 yards any direction unless it's ceremonial.

I totally see your point about the quick free kick and the advantage to the defending team Guy but I also think you are usually likely to see a free kick near the location of the foul in the attacking half unless it's a player who is at pace and bought down. In that case you are probably going to see a caution anyway which means restart is on the whistle and if he is not at pace, likelihood is the ball will be near the location of the foul

Hope that makes sense.

Given Jerzy's REO Speedwagon post in the game thread, a possible choice of music for next podcast is "Keep on loving you".