• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Kurtley Beale

Status
Not open for further replies.

mxyzptlk

Colin Windon (37)
We have a history of picking them up on contracts worth more than the player, because we've been scared of NRL coming with the cash, and as a result they have an inflated sense of their worth - particularly with RUPA standing to benefit from it.

Another factor is the lack of equity in pay across the board. Our forwards are not compensated nearly as well as the backs, ironically because forwards can't make the transition to league as easily, and tight five play is undervalued in this nation.


So just as a thought experiment, I wonder what would happen if the ARU decided for a cycle to give no fucks about the NRL and pay what the players were worth, rather than what they felt would keep them from going to the NRL.

Select the text from here --

I'd imagine the NRL would scoop up a number of rugby players, but not all of them would see much playing time and wouldn't be satisfied in the game -- especially x-factor backs with a history of making tackling optional.

The stocks of rugby players would drop, but at the same time it might drive up competition for NRL spots, which could drive down contract prices --because a squad can tell a league player they have five other union players who'll do the same job for less pay, and the squad can easily train them to do the role (just look at Semi Radradra at the Eels, a top-scorer who transferred from Fijian rugby and says he still doesn't understand the rules of league, but he doesn't have to).

And as NRL contract prices leveled out, the NRL would become less of a contract-leverage tool, which would mean players who turned to rugby would be there for what it offers and for what international rugby means, rather than what they can squeeze out of the organization; and the ARU wouldn't have to so worried about players fucking off the league if they don't get their way or preferred treatment in union.

There'd be a few fallow years in rugby, but it could help reset the deck in union. And with the rise of the Olympics, you'd most likely get more people looking to get back to a union contract sooner than later, as well as former union players who don't get game-time in league first trying their hand in Europe and then possibly returning.

-- to here to see a pseudo-economic and most probably wrong-headed analysis of how that might look. (I'm a coward with this analysis and not willing to stand behind it -- that's why the text is hidden.)
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
So you think the majority of the wallaby players think it's okay to send disgusting text about an ARU employee? And you got that from one guys comments. It's funny because the first thing I thought wasn't that he spoke for the team. The first thing I thought is this guy shouldn't be the captain of our national team.

No I think that he would not have made those comments unless he was sure that he had the majority of the squad behind him. It would be astonising if the players hadn't spoken amongst themselves about the whole thing. I don't agree with him, or the players, but he strikes me as being generally quite articulate and thoughtful.

The players thoughts may (and I say may) go something like this:

The text messages were wrong, but KB (Kurtley Beale) has been punished for that already back in June and we don't thin it's right that he is punished a 2nd time for the same thing. We were all on the plane and we saw the argument and KB (Kurtley Beale) was wrong to have the incorrect shirt on, but from what we saw they were both at fault for the slanging match.
 

vidiot

John Solomon (38)
No I think that he would not have made those comments unless he was sure that he had the majority of the squad behind him.

I think the chances of them having a secret ballot on the matter are slim, which means he might know what a couple of louder voices want, or what his closest mates and co-conspirators think. Maybe.

The players thoughts may (and I say may) go something like this:

The text messages were wrong, but KB (Kurtley Beale) has been punished for that already back in June and we don't thin it's right that he is punished a 2nd time for the same thing.

There was punishment in June? Or weasel words and applied pressure from his mates on Patston?
 

vidiot

John Solomon (38)
Wow those texts are weird. Anyone surprised by Beale's grammar? They can't be word for word, was expecting much worse. I agree they seem a little fake or paraphrased.

Probably authored by committee in Beales room by his mates when (they thought) they realised the possible consequences of the messages.
 

Cat_A

Arch Winning (36)
Hmmmm his words don't really speak to growing unrest from a year ago either - he notes how much she does for the team etc. Could it be that the team unrest has more to do with losing a lot than with a cursed female? Remember that we're taking Fairfax's word for the player unrest and thus far they've been right* about absolutely nothing.

Don't tell me the Fairfax press has been wrong about this too!

* in my world names of people, and emails obtained, and text messages obtained, carry more weight than senior players, sources close to the team, and KB (Kurtley Beale)''s manager.
 

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
I am hearing you brother. Was happier when they closed the thread at page 59.

Hope I feel the same way 10pm Saturday

It's not compulsory to read or contribute to all the forum threads.

If you've had enough of all the palaver, then I challenge you to stay off this particular thread as it runs its course towards stardom (for all the wrong reasons).

This is the Hotel California. I reckon you'll be back. ;)
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
I thought Hooper looked intent decisive and determined.

My tip is that McKenzie is finished and the players, despite the ridiculous statements on this thread are going to pull it in tight.



The only ridiculous statements are coming from people like you.

Generally most people are sticking to the facts. The facts are quite simple. Beale has offended. Statements from Beale's manager (without anything to back them up) that McKenzie knew of the texts seem to imply that his guilt is accepted.

Barring some sore of exceptional circumstances, Beale is gone it would seem. Considering his guilt seems to be accepted, I'd be doubtful of that.

The only variable here is who Beale takes down with him it seems. Either Link, or the players who are saying he shouldn't be sacked, despite committing a sackable offence with a history of off-field issues.
 

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
The easy thing with Beale is that there really doesn't have to be any "sacking" in the traditional sense. His contract expires at the end of this season.

The parties have not agreed to terms on any future contract.

One of the parties is looking rather unwilling to want to continue to negotiate terms, and will probably withdraw the current offer which the other party has apparently been considering for a long time but has yet to accept.
 

emuarse

Desmond Connor (43)
It's not compulsory to read or contribute to all the forum threads.

If you've had enough of all the palaver, then I challenge you to stay off this particular thread as it runs its course towards stardom (for all the wrong reasons).

This is the Hotel California. I reckon you'll be back. ;)

Hello, room service? One fried Beale please, oh, and could you have that lovely Mrs Ashley-Cooper prepare it? She certainly knows how to make a big serve.;)
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Payton's article is exactly what I said pages back.

She did Beale a solid, because she thought he wasn't such a bad person. Her view of that changed mid-air last week.

The most ridiculous part of all this if those are the real texts, is Beale has done this after knowing her for one day.
 

maxdacat

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Am I right in thinking that this approach from the ARU:
“As I mentioned to Isaac earlier, we consider the distribution of the texts to be a serious breach of Section 3 of the ARU Code of Conduct. We would, however, like to discuss with you and Isaac options for dealing with this matter which take into account its particular sensitivities and the interests of all involved.
“If you are prepared to discuss such options, then please let me know by 11am tomorrow. Otherwise we will initiate the formal Code of Conduct process.”
Was rejected by either KB (Kurtley Beale) or his manager? If so why on earth would you not go to some sort of mediation as suggested rather than the nuclear option....seems crazy! Is this Isaac chap another Khoder Nasser?
 

Cat_A

Arch Winning (36)
Am I right in thinking that this approach from the ARU:
“As I mentioned to Isaac earlier, we consider the distribution of the texts to be a serious breach of Section 3 of the ARU Code of Conduct. We would, however, like to discuss with you and Isaac options for dealing with this matter which take into account its particular sensitivities and the interests of all involved.
“If you are prepared to discuss such options, then please let me know by 11am tomorrow. Otherwise we will initiate the formal Code of Conduct process.”
Was rejected by either KB (Kurtley Beale) or his manager? If so why on earth would you not go to some sort of mediation as suggested rather than the nuclear option..seems crazy! Is this Isaac chap another Khoder Nasser?
Perhaps the answer to that was in KB (Kurtley Beale)'s text: sometimes he just does stupid stuff for no reason.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Fuck he appears to be a train wreck. I reckon Moses would have earned his 10% over his career so far.

Based on how much all his team mates seem to love him, I doubt Kurtley is a bad person. But his summation of himself seems absolutely spot on.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
And her CEO had described Beale as a 'national treasure' the year before


Probably wanted to get the players on-side. No better way than to do a big favor to a popular player, when she was actually the victim.
 

Tomikin

Steve Williams (59)
It's not compulsory to read or contribute to all the forum threads.

If you've had enough of all the palaver, then I challenge you to stay off this particular thread as it runs its course towards stardom (for all the wrong reasons).

This is the Hotel California. I reckon you'll be back. ;)
Its like a car crash I know it's going to be horrific but I can not look away
 

old fella

Stan Wickham (3)
The publisher of allegedly defamatory material can be anyone who takes part in the publication or replication of such material, so you may be responsible for material posted by others on your blog and potentially liable for defamation.

The keyboard warriors who have posted hurtful and innacurate rubbish about matters such as Ewan McKenzie's family on this thread might want to take note. Whilst you might get a sick kick out of anonymously publishing malicously defamatory material, you are exposing the hard working volunteers who moderate/run this site to potential legal action. Try writing about Rugby.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top