Fair trade

Written By: - Date published: 9:35 am, March 8th, 2013 - 24 comments
Categories: capitalism - Tags:

Farrar and Mallard want us to give the NZRU a statue to trade back one of Holyoake that the government accidentally sold them along with the old State Services building. How about saying to the NZRU, ‘We accidentally sold you a statue but, hey, you remember all that money we gave you to under-write your loss-making tournament? Maybe you could give us our fucken statue back without being dicks about it?

24 comments on “Fair trade ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. tc 1
    8 March 2013 at 10:13 am

    Trade them a statue of the NZ Taxpayer being rogered by the NZRU for ongoing funds to run their so called professional game.

  2. Bunji 2
    8 March 2013 at 10:25 am

    Why would we want a statue of corrupt Holyoake back?

  3. fenderviper 3
    8 March 2013 at 10:27 am

    Farrer and Mallard…. what a team.

    Key will no doubt prefer to commision a plastic replica from somewhere in Asia and put the savings made toward a solid gold statue of himself holding the ‘rubber wool’ cup.

  4. prism 4
    8 March 2013 at 10:38 am

    Sounds reasonable that the NZR lot just return it, but could need an encouraging proviso perhaps – that we will continue to consider your future applications for support.

    • Mary 4.1
      8 March 2013 at 10:41 am

      Maybe Trevor and Tau could just go in and nick it, and if anyone tries to stop them they could just smack them up.

  5. Mary 5
    8 March 2013 at 10:39 am

    Mallard should put in a members bill that renationalises the statue.

  6. Red Rosa 6
    8 March 2013 at 11:35 am

    Send the Army along to take it back by force.

    After all, it was the distraction by Rugby World Cup work, which led to the inadequate training and the subsequent death of one of their soldiers in Afghanistan.

    • Lanthanide 6.1
      8 March 2013 at 1:44 pm

      *subsequent suicide

      Which IMO is more damning. Deaths happen in the military, suicides shouldn’t.

      • Murray Olsen 6.1.1
        8 March 2013 at 4:09 pm

        The US military has a huge problem with suicides, although many wait until after they return from the invasion zone. I don’t know about other countries, but I imagine that any young people that are sent to do unspeakable things to other human beings will be negatively affected by it.

        • McFlock 6.1.1.1
          8 March 2013 at 4:44 pm

          That’s getting into speculation about the specifics of the case, though. And just because he was in the military doesn’t mean that he did unspeakable things.

          But the psychological welfare of troops was an evolving discipline throughout that 20C. The job in WW2 was to increase the percentage of frontline troops who actually fired their weapons in a meaningful way. Success achieved by Vietnam, but then the cost of that was increased mental health problems particularly when they returned home. Practises have improved in the US (not sure of NZ practices), like cooling off periods so the soldier doesn’t go straight from a warzone into shopping mall, but on the flipside long wars with no discernible benefit or moral justice tend to drag people down. And that’s without unit subcultures becoming self-destructive being taken into account.

          • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.1
            9 March 2013 at 10:36 am

            Practises have improved in the US (not sure of NZ practices), like cooling off periods so the soldier doesn’t go straight from a warzone into shopping mall

            Practices and procedures improving is one side of the coin. Massive increases in optempo and perstempo (often against established doctrine) working against these improvements however, is the other.

  7. ghostwhowalksnz 7
    8 March 2013 at 12:36 pm

    Do the NZRU actually own the building ?
    Doesnt seem to be a wise use of resources, normally leasing a bit of space is all they need.

    Could it be that Bob Jones is the owner of the land and building.

  8. Chris 8
    8 March 2013 at 1:06 pm

    What money did the government give to the NZRU to under-write the tournament?

  9. McFlock 9
    8 March 2013 at 1:14 pm

    I thought that the ORFU were a bunch of grasping cocks demanding (and getting) recurring handouts from the DCC simply because of small-town cronyism.

    Apparently they learned it from their umbrella organisation.

  10. infused 10
    8 March 2013 at 8:40 pm

    It’s a Trojan Horse.

  11. Roy 11
    8 March 2013 at 9:40 pm

    If the NZRU had an ounce of decency they’d return it anyway, since they got it due to an error.

  12. Catp 12
    9 March 2013 at 9:24 am

    Well, setting the profanity aside, I suspect the NZRFU are actually tenants – not owners of the property. That would make the statue a Landlord’s fixture. It might also be that the building h as in private ownership for a while and its only the moving out of the SSC that’s prompted anyone to notice.

    If so, will you retract?

    [no, because the implication of Farrar and Mallard’s idea is that we should trade a rugby statue to the NZRU to get the Holyoake statue back in return – Farrar was clearly fed that idea from someone in NZRU circles. If NZRU can trade the statue, they can gift it too. If need be, they just buy it off the landlord and give it back as a thank-you to the taxpayer. Zet]

    • Cato 12.1
      9 March 2013 at 10:17 am

      Well, I take your point. However, linking through to Kiwiblog, and then through to the Dominion article, it isn’t “clear” to me that the NZRU were behind much of anything. I suppose it’s ‘possible’ rather than ‘clear’ but there does not seem to be much to hang your hat on.

      In any event, it seems that the owner of the land (and the statue) quite likes it and so wouldn’t be inclined to sell or trade anyway.

      However, i would agree that a swap would be a dumb idea – the statue is well protected where it is.