• 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.

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
You look at the playing group that Australian rugby has saddled itself with at the top levels, and you're left thinking "which of these guys loves the jersey enough to actually play for nothing? To just represent their country?"

Its the only way you're going to find a team that believes the game is bigger than them.

I'm not so sure about this.

Is there any correlation between the two in a particularly positive light?

I'd be equally willing to bet that the players who would 'play for nothing' would also be of the mind that 'what goes on tour stays on tour' and 'boys will be boys' etc.

Some of the so called 'mercenaries' across multiple teams are close to the most professional and well behaved players in the game.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Fair point BH. SBW. Absolute mercenary. Also absolute professional.
 

BDA

Peter Johnson (47)
After now having a chance to read the text message exchange between Di and Beale, I make the following observations:-

1) Beale deserves to be sacked. I have no respect for people that engage in that type of behaviour. Workplace bullying destroys people's lives.
2) The ARU investigation is warranted. If it is revealed that Link or any of the coaching staff were made aware of this incident and didn't act, the ARU will open itself up to a law suit.
3) The text message seem to indicate that Di would not be informing Link as to what had happened. Seems like Di (like too many before her) tried to give Beale a second chance only to be burned.

I'm really hoping that there will be a light at the end of the tunnel and that this incident will see the last of this type of behaviour.
 

SammyP

Chris McKivat (8)
Horwill. Maybe Moore. Potentially Hooper. Pat McCabe.

Possibly others who keep their passion a little more subdued. I can put together a pretty big list of player who I DON'T think would play for nothing.


Definitely Pat McCabe. There is a guy who gave everything for the Jersey.
I can think of some younger guys who might jump at the chance to play for the Wallabies without pay being an issue. Sio for example.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
2. Kurtley Beale is at the opposite of this spectrum. He continually behaves in an immature and sometimes a lot worse fashion. The incidents reported re his time at the Rebels are actually by no means the worst of what really happened. The organisation galvanised to support him through some pretty dire circumstances and he paid them back by punching his captain.I completeley believe he is capable of the text issues he is accused of. Likewise i know he is capable of showing fake remorse and playing the "Im so stupid card"

4. The player leadership group have a lot to answer for but again Im not surprised by their defence of Beale as i have seen it first hand. The Rebels group was quick to want to burn JOC (James O'Connor) whos biggest offence really was being a young smartarse. However they would defend Beale to the hilt even when his issues went to public safety. Basically their mentality came down to KBs a good bloke and JOC (James O'Connor) is not.What Michael Hooper said yesterday shows unfortunately that he is not close to being fit to be Wallaby captain.



These are the parts I find so interesting. The enigma that is Kurtley Beale. So trouble yet so unbelievably popular with the playing groups who never seem to resent him for the off-field distractions which creep into their lives.

At some point surely no matter who good a bloke he comes across, you'd have to think, being mates with this bloke is just too much trouble?

Yet even players like Delve have come to his defense.

Whilst I'm not at all defending Beale, and have in fact been the opposite all along, one must think there is some decency to him somewhere, for the amount of people the consistently defend and support him through all of this.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
It's interesting how negatively people are viewing Michael Hooper's backing of KB (Kurtley Beale).

His comments that the team is tight and the Wallabies want to be a team that looks after its own seem to speak more to a general attitude than a specific backing of Beale.

The actual quotes from Hooper seem to all relate to the team supporting Beale and not wanting him to be sacked rather than specifically discussing the issue and whether Beale's actions warrant sacking.

I would hope that the Wallabies support all their teammates until such time as that person is no longer their teammate.

They are not there to make decisions about players' futures so its much better for team harmony for them to be entirely supportive than forming opinions about whether someone within their team deserves their continued support or not.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
It's a bad look when all reports say he definitely committed a sackable offence (or more an offence that if the perpetrator was not sacked, would be a massive HR disgrace for the company) and when asked if he should be sacked responded, "no".

If he didn't want to hang Kurtley out to dry he could have done a number of things, and stated the Wallabies have high standards though he doesn't have all the facts and shouldn't comment because of that.

Instead, with the information out there, he said he thought Beale should stay.
 

No4918

John Hipwell (52)
Wasn't he asked "Do you think he should be sacked?" Answer - "NO"

That is pretty clearly a comment on the specific issues of which Beale is undoubtedly guilty. Happy to accept I am wrong if that is not the context of the question he was asked.
 

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
It's pretty telling Hooper said he hadn't even spoken to him and had only heard things through others. That's his Wallaby and Super rugby captain and they're not even in communication.
 

Chris McCracken

Jim Clark (26)
It's interesting how negatively people are viewing Michael Hooper's backing of KB (Kurtley Beale).

His comments that the team is tight and the Wallabies want to be a team that looks after its own seem to speak more to a general attitude than a specific backing of Beale.

The actual quotes from Hooper seem to all relate to the team supporting Beale and not wanting him to be sacked rather than specifically discussing the issue and whether Beale's actions warrant sacking.

I would hope that the Wallabies support all their teammates until such time as that person is no longer their teammate.

They are not there to make decisions about players' futures so its much better for team harmony for them to be entirely supportive than forming opinions about whether someone within their team deserves their continued support or not.


What I saw him say last night on the news seemed to be an unequivocal 'no' to whether Beale should be sacked. I think that is what people are referring to when they refer to his bad judgement, as he shouldn't express that opinion when there seems a cut and dried HR issue.
 

BDA

Peter Johnson (47)
One question I ask is, had Di raised the issue with team management when it occurred, what would have been Beale's fate. The incident may have been mediated successfully at that time with Beale merely copping a suspension and warning.

I wonder what the legal implications could be to the ARU if they do not terminate Beale's employment. Given that Di has already resigned it is probably neither here nor there. Had she resigned due to a failure by the ARU to deal with the incident appropriately then there could be legal consequences. Does anyone have a background in Employment Law? Mine is very limited.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Common sense would have to say that the fact she withheld the information from management would prevent any claim against the ARU.

Now as for the media outlets who have dragged her personal and professional reputation through the mud, likely being a major factor in her resignation, including but not limited to:

  • incorrectly claiming her professional qualifications were false;
  • incorrectly claiming she was in a relationship with Ewen McKenzie.
I'm not sure they will be as safe.
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
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.
We take this stuff seriously @old fella. If you see something defamatory report it and we will get rid of it.
 

BDA

Peter Johnson (47)
defamatory publications can include any comment which has implications that will cause others to shun, ridicule or avoid you. The papers suggesting that there are rumors that Ewen and Di were in a relationship, would be defamatory in my view, against both Link and Di.

EDIT: unless there was some truth to the comments obviously
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top