I doubt it, and it would be by coincidence if so. I don't think Quade had such Machiavellian intentions when he blurted with his fingers or on TV. I think he was talking from his bubble, not the greater sphere of Aus rugby.
Quade telling it how it is
- Thread starter Brumby Jack
- Start date
- Status
Scotty
David Codey (61)
No he certainly didn't intend that, but he may have tweaked the thoughts of some of the board. Even if it was the lack JON's handling the issue that garnered their attention.
I would be surprised if the two issues were completely exclusive.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
I think the teams results thereafter made RD stronger.
Had they lost in SA & Argentina, or got smashed by the AB's. RD was still in trouble.
But they didn't...
Had they lost in SA & Argentina, or got smashed by the AB's. RD was still in trouble.
But they didn't...
BPC
Phil Hardcastle (33)
I suspect the governance report and proposed changes did more to JON relinquishing the CEO role.
mudskipper
Colin Windon (37)
I agree... Quade only went public when he was playing poorly... and blamed the coach...
Additionally I think Quade Cooper got off easy compared to Lote Tiqiri a few years back...
BPC
Phil Hardcastle (33)
The ugly truth is that canning LT's contract freed up a lot of cash. The ARU haven't signed QC (Quade Cooper) yet but they will be spending a lot less than they did on LT.
mudskipper
Colin Windon (37)
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
What has how good he is or isn't got to do with it?
I reckon the first thing he would have said to a mate or family member was phew, thank fuck they haven't suspended me. I can play.
That is what matters to most sports professionals. They want to play. I reckon he should have been banned to a substantial number of matches but the ARU was probably too scared that he would piss off to league or something.
Everyone carries on about 40 K (which again grossed into his pay will work out as less with a clever enough accountant). If he was suspended for say six months, his endorsement and sponsorship value would have dropped. If I am a sponsor, I ain't paying for a product that's not going to be on TV and get my brand exposed.
I can't believe people think a financial penalty is enough to come down on a professional player who publicly pissed on his employer. In the real world people get fired for this (and substantially less) else the company looks like they have no spine and no values. Instead they say okay we're going to pay you about 7 or 8% less and don't be a naughty boy again.
You don't think that if he was suspended from rugby for six months he would have just left the sport or at least left Australian Rugby for at least a season? If they wanted him gone from Australian Rugby they could have just sacked him. Coming up with a penalty that forced him out would have made the ARU look worse in my opinion.
I would question whether banning him from playing for the Reds was an effective and appropriate punishment for issues that related to the Wallabies.
A ban from playing against the British Lions would seem to relate to an event too far in the future in my opinion and could potentially not be a penalty whatsoever if he wasn't in a position to be selected in 6 or so months time.
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
JON left because there is money to be made.
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
Right so players can carry on like tits in national colors and all is hunky dory in their club strip or visa versa
I agree through, this left the ARU with a conundrum. Too sever and he could have legged it. I don't think he would have. That would have tainted him even more.
Everything really, the reality is that key players get more chances.
The bottom line is that if he was rubbish his contract would have been torn up
I think a rugby related ban would have been correct if he'd been fit and in line to play tests in the near future. The problem is that the next test he is any chance of playing is not until next June, over 7 months away. A ban relating to events that far in the distance that he is not guaranteed to be fit for or a definite selection is too far removed in my opinion.
Any other rugby related ban would only affect him at the Reds next season which again is multiple months away and relates to a team other than the one he caused problems for.
I definitely think the timing made it very difficult for the sanction to involve suspension from rugby of any format.
badabing59
Cyril Towers (30)
I'd venture to say that if Robbie has a successful EYOT, you've got him til the RWC. It would take a brave ARU board to remove him that close to RWC time.
Scarfman
Knitter of the Scarf
Hang in there Karl, only 17 pages to go and Quade's in the hunjy club.
I reckon we lie low for a while, then jump on the next thing anyone says about the situation. When you think that we've still got the ARU to put the contract back on the table, parties to come to an agreement, Quade's reconciliation with his teammates, and inevitably, his next screw-up, this topic has a long way to go.
I reckon we lie low for a while, then jump on the next thing anyone says about the situation. When you think that we've still got the ARU to put the contract back on the table, parties to come to an agreement, Quade's reconciliation with his teammates, and inevitably, his next screw-up, this topic has a long way to go.
Not on my watch! I'll declare the innings before he can raise his bat.
redstragic
Alan Cameron (40)
We got get this thread to the 100 pages. The Tom Carter thread never made it and I have mourned that missed opportunity, let's not waste this.
- Status