Search results

What do I believe? Actual on field results, or my lying eyes .....

Or if there is significant personal injury/deaths. I recall the good old days, Royce Simmons drove his car into someone’s house. His penalty? A fundraiser to help him out, because his insurance was invalid due to him being pissed as a newt

If you were suggesting he was getting favours to be picked, I’d be with you. But if he’s the best they’ve got down there,he’s entitled to get picked, it’s his turn until the aspiring players are better than him. IMO.

It’s being played out that someone who is wanting the high moral ground,refusing to budge due to his beliefs,is a liar & a hypocrite. Don’t you think after the first episode,RA should have ensured that there was clarity,and that their standards had been communicated in a legally binding way?

And trotting out some genuine 3rd graders for their 1st grade bench

Apparently there was a precedence with KB (Kurtley Beale). Even if it wasn’t possible to add clauses, as part of the “listening process” after the first controversy, RA could easily have sent him a letter specifying exactly what was and wasn’t ok in regards to social media activity. And require him to...

The more we know,the more it seems business as usual, avoid tough discussions/decisions. Then claim they were innocent bystanders when it inevitably blows up. It’s beyond comprehension that he could be re signed, without clarifying the boundaries of his social media posts.

History says it always is......

Oh, so zero substance....... But when I read the quotes,it seemed consistent with how RA works. Even a broken clock is right twice a day day so,maybe it’s got legs?

Were Wicks that poor ? They conceded 3 rolling mauls 1 pushover 1 pick and go 1 intercept Had a couple of tries disallowed. IF Marlins can win the territory game v uni, they can beat them. IF........

Pray?

I was responding to a post claiming any missing clauses were the fault of the lawyers, or an underling. My position is just about,whatever happened, it’s her fault there is no clarity in the matter. She met with him after the first controversy, had a press conference saying they had shared...

And remembering the recent controversy that she thought important enough to have discussions with him about expectations etc.

It’s up to her to instruct Freehills or whoever that she needs additional clauses in the contract. IF she was approaching him post contract,then it’s gross mismanagement. delegating it is no excuse, managing people is supposed to be a core competency.

I don’t know who made it on the list. Her previous role,with much less responsibility proved too much for her. Clearly,she can’t be held responsible for a poorer TV deal,etc etc. But she can be held to account for poor practices. The unconfirmed reports that she was asking Izzy to agree to...

I’ve always had a problem with that woman being CEO. I’m pretty sure once we get into the details of who did what when,it won’t enhance her reputation. Having said that, I’m still cheering for her to succeed. Nothing good comes from her failing.

Pretty sure Izzy has knocked back good cash from the ticket clippers at RA. God made him do or something,so he can’t undo it.

They have always been dependent on RA to survive. As I said previously, the Tahs will only be liable for their part of Izzies wage, as they always were. The only change might be the timing. RA is liable for any damages if there are any. GRob just posted a good article saying. Damages of $5M is...

I was responding to a post suggesting that might be a risk that Tahs not RA directors might be facing. Pretty sure Tahs would have a RA reliance clause in their annual accounts as well.