Brian Westlake
Arch Winning (36)
They cant drink coffee whilst breathing through their mouths. Too difficult
Waratahs 2020
- Thread starter RugbyReg
- Start date
They cant drink coffee whilst breathing through their mouths. Too difficult
Presumably Finsbury Girl will be cancelling their Reds membership when they find out that the Reds also have a coffee machine the players use.
They have the machine but Thorn insists they must drink it out of their cupped hands
eastman
Arch Winning (36)
Let's not go over the top here. At his best he is not very very good but quite good and doesn't nearly show it enough. While he has quite strong core skills, he doesn't take the ball to the line and challenge the defense at all
Noted (Nothing like a common enemy to bring fans together)
Jagman
Trevor Allan (34)
I'm trying to figure out if the new prop Tauakipulu is Aus eligible. An exert from the article reads "Despite his upbringing on the other side of the Tasman, there is an Australian connection for the promising front rower with brother, Keynan based in Queensland and representing Australia at U18 level." https://nsw.rugby/news/2019/12/02/tiaan-tauakipulu-joins-nsw-waratahs
Are the rules for U18s the same as U20s, sevens and test eligibility (i.e. five year residency, birth or parentage)? If so does his brother qualify via Aus parentage? Otherwise he'll have to wait til he's 23 to represent Australia. The Tahs haven't had a foreign development player for while, as far as I recall.
Are the rules for U18s the same as U20s, sevens and test eligibility (i.e. five year residency, birth or parentage)? If so does his brother qualify via Aus parentage? Otherwise he'll have to wait til he's 23 to represent Australia. The Tahs haven't had a foreign development player for while, as far as I recall.
Pass it to Dunning!
Bob Loudon (25)
Jagman
Trevor Allan (34)
That's true but if he shows real promise too early I doubt he'll stick around that long if NZ hold that carrot out for him like they did for Lomax. They had no problem giving him 1 cap. On the other hand if he doesn't show promise early enough I doubt the Tahs will persist with him. It's not like NSW has trouble producing props generally (especially over a 5 year period).
Finsbury Girl
Trevor Allan (34)
The same thing. If they can't get the player to back down and reverse their position, they terminate their employment.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Meant to post this in the other thread and I’ll reply there
OK, I like hypotheticals
The Tahs get a massive sponsorship deal, from say Glencore or say Huawei; and our best player in his own time, in the off season, protests against the "interests" of the sponsor (against a new coal mine or oppressive working conditions in Chinese sweat shops), should they be sacked?
S
Show-n-go
Guest
Ooooft that’s a doozy
Termination wouldn't be the first step but it would be the last step if no other resolution could be found.
I don't think you can continue any employment where the employee is actively undermining the commercial interests of the employer and won't stop doing that.
And Glencore could quite possibly have been Pocock - it is complicated
The challenge is what the f*ck doesn't fit under "undermining the commercial interests of a sponsor/employer" where those "core values" are nebulously documented at a some weekend management retreat facilitated by someone from HR
I'm not really sure what your point is here. It's generally pretty obvious if an employee is damaging the reputation of the employer. You then need to make it stop or if it's irreconcilable you terminate their employment.
No part of this suggests that terminating the employment doesn't come at a cost to pay them out.
The concept that this sets some sort of precedent that the next time an employee does this they will be allowed to just continue doing it regardless of the impact it causes it is complete fantasy.