Search results

Kudos to Pulver, not only did he acuse SS clubs of pissing money up against the wall, he picked their pockets on the way through.

That’s my point. If you think 40-50 mins is convenience, then there’s not much else to say..... There’s plenty of things for young blokes to do,that require little effort,no travelling costs,that are local to them. Rugby is not the centre of everyone’s universe.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/club-rugby-player-s-battle-with-deadly-flesh-eating-bug-20190426-p51hiu.html

Izzie is not a victim here. He posted something that is offensive to some. He has been explicitly warned about posting these types of things previously, after he put some of his employers commercial agreements at risk. By all means,argue that the mooted punishment does not fit the crime. But...

Why? That’s like saying it would be great for Easts if Gordon folded. Same travel time.

@B&W, I’m ignoring your posts,because it’s boring for everyone else for 2 people to clog up a Rugby thread in a flame war. Added to that, I find little merit in any of your contributions. I do note,that you’ve substantially edited your original racist post that I objected to. I’m glad you took...

It’s a logical explanation of what’s happening with points for the bye. Doesn’t make sense to me. Can’t think of any benefit to justify the change.

Has to be a stuff up. No way the Marlins would let that go thru to the keeper without squealing to the high heavens :)

unfortunately the score was a fair reflection of the game. The canteen offerings were top of the table.

More than that, there’s zero chance Raelene pumped out that statement without getting legal advice. Here’s an interesting article about it the issue. https://www.smh.com.au/national/rugby-s-case-against-folau-is-a-legal-and-moral-minefield-20190417-p51f3m.html

Put Killingworth & Parahi in & they improve dramatically.

He is not going to say he’s been in a cult or a sect. It’s a definite non starter.

We are all just surmising here, and Your POV makes sense. I’m just assuming that this exact thing ( that caused so much angst last time he did it) is described in his contract as a termination event.which given the history makes sense for it to be categorised as such in an updated contract.

It seems weird to say it, but I think RA has done everything they should have,so far. Alan Jones coming out against their actions, confirms my view.

I was responding to your post predicting SCs at 10 paces. The court process is slow and torturous. He’s more likely to be retired by the time a court determines the outcome

Only if he doesn’t want to go to Europe. If he signs for big bucks over there,what’s he going to sue them for? If he hasn’t suffered a loss, there’s nothing to compensate.

I was thinking his dodging ph calls was more likely a rabbit in the spotlights reaction,rather than it being a flipping the bird response.

Not sacked yet. They’ve announced "In the absence of compelling mitigating factors, it is our intention to terminate his contract."

I don’t think that’s right. In round 1, sponsors made it clear that they were considering cancelling contracts of considerable value. There had to be communication between RA & Izzie,where the commercial ramifications of his personal views were explained. In that communication they undoubtedly...

True. But imagine the reaction if the goals were realistic (and thus disappointing) Everyone would be looking for their pitchforks