Quade telling it how it is

[Bowside]

By saying "it's not about the money" - Cooper was stating he was happy with the amount of money originally offered but was holding off signing because he was not happy with other parts of the wallaby program.

Personally I think he was waiting for deans to be sacked, which due to those at the top not being big enough men to admit they got it wrong hasn't eventuated.

He also stated he didn't think the facilities were up to scratch. Being the best rugby team in the country you would expect the wallabies to have the best facilities going round. But since the ARU scrapped camp wallaby, the team regularly trains on patchy back ovals at local schools. The facilities they use are put to shame by the super rugby teams, let alone your average AFL or NRL team whose facilities are far more professional.

I dont think it is fair to label cooper as totally driven by coin, and then try and tell us that the rest of the professional rugby players in this country are not.

Stating your decision is not 'about the money' doesn't mean you should then be offered a pay cut. I think trying to justify the ARU's response on those grounds is a simplistic and vindictive read on the situation.

 

[I like to watch]

Huh? That's my point.

Isn't it logical of the ARU to do what they did, if they believe RD won't play him?
That's hardly sticking the boot in and stopping him from playing for the Reds as you also claimed!

 

[Braveheart81]

Protagonist, antagonist- it doesn't matter. We are losing a great player because of ineptitude. Take a bow ARU, the rugby world is laughing at you.

I imagine plenty of people in the rugby world are wondering why the ARU provided QC (Quade Cooper) with any opportunity to continue playing for the Wallabies after everything that has happened.

Not many countries take an 'appease troublesome players no matter what' attitude.

 

[Scoey]

Giteau was leaving regardless.

Smith retired.

Elsom was broken.

Despite Giteau's very public dispute with Deans he didn't contribute to any of their departures.

Yeah fair enough, but others would have a different opinion. It was widely speculated that Gits left because of the dispute but you may have more intimate knowledge on the topic.

Smith was retired by Deans.

 

[Slim 293]

Smith was not retired by Deans.

That's just utter nonsense.

 

[I like to watch]

Personally I think he was waiting for deans to be sacked, which due to those at the top not being big enough men to admit they got it wrong hasn't eventuated.

More like he was trying to instigate the sacking of Deans.
When you play power politics you better win, as it is unusual that the plotters of an unsuccessful coup survive.

 

[Scoey]

Isn't it logical of the ARU to do what they did, if they believe RD won't play him?
That's hardly sticking the boot in and stopping him from playing for the Reds as you also claimed!

Ah yep, I see what you were getting at. Might've been easier to understand without all the FFS's and the cunch of bunts? But I digress.

No I don't think it's logical. If we have a coach who isn't picking the best 22/23 players and the ARU is happy with this then we've reached a new low. Yes, it is entirely subjective, who the best players are, but his ARU contract should come down to his ability, not this other shit that has been supposedly dealt with.

If they aren't going to pick him, why offer him anything at all? Come out and say it. Make a decision and stand by it. Tell the Aus Rugby public that they don't want Quade playing for the Wallabies because he's not good enough. They can't say that but, because it's not true. They still have the shit's that he did what he did so they want him to quit. So they can say, "We offered him a contract but he said no" when really they offered him a shit sandwich.

 

[Scoey]

Smith was not retired by Deans.

That's just utter nonsense.

No that's your opinion but we're getting off the topic here. Happy to agree to disagree.

 

[barbarian]

Smith was retired by Deans.

Ahh, it's in italics. So it must be true.
.

 

[BPC]

While I think the ARU's lowball offer was a calculated insult, you have to think Quade played into their hands. He got an offer (same as previous year) and let it sit for months, preumably on the advice of his agent reptile Nasser, without acceptance. Was there a plan to get a better offer? What the hell were they think? Then Quade shoots his mouth off about the toxic environment (which may be true but perhaps was not the best way to voice his concerns). He digs himself deeper into the hole on television by poorly explains concerns about the facilities (which now appears to be true) and then commits the double heresy of referring to the 'yellow' jersey and claiming he would not accept it if offered.

While I think the ARU have overreacted with a fine plus a reduced contract offer (one or the other may have been appropriate), the overreeaction was certainly not unexpected. Plenty GAGGR'S predicted a stingy contractual offer. Quade and Khoder seem to have orchestrated the whole thing but I can't see any method in the madness just yet. Did Khoder ever have a plan for Quade's negotiations?

 

[Scoey]

I imagine plenty of people in the rugby world are wondering why the ARU provided QC (Quade Cooper) with any opportunity to continue playing for the Wallabies after everything that has happened.

Not many countries take an 'appease troublesome players no matter what' attitude.

They haven't given him an opportunity to play for the Wallabies but. That will only occur if he's selected.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Yes the ARU is stopping him from doing that. He needs a contract with the ARU to play that and the ARU know that. But not being happy with punishing him once (actually twice if you count the suspended sentence) they have decided to sink the boot in again. Their "offer" is akin to them saying you will get on your knees, eat a pile of shit of our shoes and then thank us for it. Then, and only then, can you play for the Reds.

He's not being punished twice: he is suffering the consequences of the fact that he is not as valuable to he ARU now as he was once or as he thought he would be.
Have you forgotten, or do you choose to overlook, the fact that an independent panel imposed the penalty?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Scoey]

Ahh, it's in italics. So it must be true.
.

Hmmmm you make a good point. I stand corrected.

 

[I like to watch]

He got an offer (same as previous year) and let it sit for months, preumably on the advice of his agent reptile Nasser, without acceptance. Was there a plan to get a better offer?
....... Then Quade shoots his mouth off about the toxic environment (which may be true but perhaps was not the best way to voice his concerns). He digs himself deeper into the hole on television by poorly explains concerns about the facilities (which now appears to be true) and then commits the double heresy of referring to the 'yellow' jersey and claiming he would not accept it if offered.

Quade and Khoder seem to have orchestrated the whole thing but I can't see any method in the madness just yet. Did Khoder ever have a plan for Quade's negotiations?

Where can I back QC (Quade Cooper) to make an announcement within the next 2 weeks announcing a new start somewhere, that would not have been possible without a low ball offer from the ARU?
It all smells like a Nasser tactic to me.

 

[Ole Two Blue]

He gambled on being able to increase his worth and lost.

Spot on Braveheart

 

[Scoey]

He's not being punished twice: he is suffering the consequences of the fact that he is not as valuable to he ARU now as he was once or as he thought he would be.
Have you forgotten, or do you choose to overlook, the fact that an independent panel imposed the penalty?

There are countless posts here that state that in addition to his form, the fiasco that has been the last few months are both reasons he has received the offer that he has. You are one of the few who have maintained a stance that it should be based solely on form - and I agree. The disciplinary hearing quite rightly needed to be independent. This doesn't change the fact that a player like Quade would find this offer insulting. The ARU would know this when they tabled it and I feel that it is deliberate. This is our point of difference. We'll never know what really happened but to me, he's being punished twice.

 

[Ole Two Blue]

He needs to suck it up: he brought it on himself.

The planets must be aligning IS, we are in agreement....................

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The issue i see is it shouldn't just be about his value to the wallabies, it should be about his value to rugby and Qld as well.

Don't you think the contracting system is a bit busted when:

- provinces are limited in what they can pay a player by the imposed salary cap
- they then rely on the aru to provide top ups to their most important players to be able to secure their services

Possibly, but if you view it as a means of retaining control of who plays and, to some extent, in what circumstances the ARU has a vital interest in that. QLD could hand back the license if they don't like the terms- they agreed to them and have been the beneficiary of ARU largesse. As have NSW.
This would have been an issue no matter what contracting system applied: bag the boss suffer the consequences.
If you took away the ARU control (meaning money)the European/Japanese clubs would poach our players. If you had centralized contracts he still would have bagged the boss.
If he'd been better advised he might not have found himself in this mess. He may be the scapegoat of a generation but others will think twice before they swim outside the flags in future: and that's been needed for a while.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The issue i see is it shouldn't just be about his value to the wallabies, it should be about his value to rugby and Qld as well.

Don't you think the contracting system is a bit busted when:

- provinces are limited in what they can pay a player by the imposed salary cap
- they then rely on the aru to provide top ups to their most important players to be able to secure their services

The system may not be perfect.
In most jobs if you unleash a public tirade directed at the boss you will not be in the running for employee of the year.
The fact that you are really good in your department (QLD) does not entitle you to bag the company and then expect them to treat you as a valuable member of the company, as opposed to the department.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ole Two Blue]

If he'd been better advised he might not have found himself in this mess. He may be the scapegoat of a generation but others will think twice before they swim outside the flags in future: and that's been needed for a while.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

IS nailing it on the head again.......love it.