Search results

I think the chiefs were the better team. Reds looked lost in attack which is understandable given their replacements being used. It's frustrating to me that the reds seem oblivious to the clock near the end of games.

We didn't kick our goals. We can only blame ourselves for that one.

This lock pair from Queensland are starting to look really special. They do a ridiculous amount of work - but in a brutal fashion. Great to see.

Yes there was. Don't sign a contract you aren't happy with. This is incorrect because the situation is now worse. You say "We couldn't sign a contract with him because we were worried about social media posts that he might make in the future and we have no guarantees from him that he would stop"...

Yeah was aware the funding was around the same figure, but I'm more commenting on the size of it - that building looks almost twice the size of the broncos one. It might not be as I've only just seen those images now and I've not paid a lot of attention to the broncos one tbh, I dunno. It's a...

throw it in straight ffs

Did they say that $35m is for what's shown in the picture? That's some pretty blue sky estimating if so. I really like what is shown and hope that's what they deliver.

Your rules mate, not mine.

Reported for hate speech. I chose to ignore everything that you wrote in your post and chose to only look at the picture you posted. Why are you so against homosexuals?

You telling the union to back off? Them there's fighting words. ;P

Actually, yes. Learn some history.

That they publicly stated they were going to fire someone prior to hearing him out (or following their own procedures of giving him a tribunal hearing) thereby tainting the potential outcome of any dismissal process.

That's hate speech.

Being technically correct is the logical and scientific corner. It is not the politicians corner. You are judging someone based on your own value system - you're worse than he is.

No he didn't. Read it again - he said he would walk away at the time of the meeting with RA last year if things were untenable then. He made no commitment for future instances. That's not clutching at straws - it's using the rules of the English language on what he had written in that...

^^^° the problem is that many people read that article as if it in reference to what is happening now. It clearly was written in reference to the specific meeting that took place last year. RA continued to sign him after that article and despite him saying hes going to continue posting on his...

There's evidence to the contrary, and in the case of Cameron an enormous amount.

Sequence of events are horribly important. She said publicly that he had made promises during their first disciplinary meeting last year. He then wrote an article specifically because he felt what she said publicly misrepresented what he said during that meeting. That right there are the...

They're incompetent because they tried to do something about the issue AFTER he had already signed the contract. He had already been the subject of disciplinary action, he had written an article saying we was going to continue posting about his faith and that RA had misrepresented his view of...

“You’re talking about a guy who showed he was a liability in the social media space last year, and then you go and sign him up for four years on a $4 million deal. You want to make sure you have everything in place. You need to dot your I’s and cross your T’s across everything. They didn’t...