Braith Anasta / Conflict of Interest

[Iamback]

The assumption though is the ex player is the best for that.

Analysis isn't really a required skill of a player who doesn't get time to think through it all. Some of the worst "analysis" has come from legendary halves. They can break down individual decisions but can't really fit the skill set of the players into the plan.

People can have a history with the game without having played it at the elite level.

I know the the saying "those that can't do teach" is meant as an insult but the reverse is also true. Those that can't teach just do.

Like when they say "he leads by example" oh okay, so he just plays really freaking well but doesn't actually help you play better

Well I am not just talking ex player.

For example we now will have Kevin Walters on Fox. Whether he offers insight or not is the question BUT

He will come with feelings towards players/clubs he has an association with.

So I think you need different views but all come with some kind of bias

as for the leads by example there are players like Jake Trbojevic in the Origin team who don't look very good or stats are bad

Getting an insight to the things as Plebs miss offers a differing view

 

[edabomb]

I can't see why he would declare this as an interest, but I don't see the conclict. He's a player agent solely focussed on getting the best outcome for his client. He can talk about his clients until he's blue in the face on 360, I don't see how that compels a CEO to add another zero on to their salary. The argument would be more that it is terrible TV and ratings are plummeting.

If he was the head of Roosters recruitment and he was on national TV spreading rubbish to drive their targets prices down then I could see a conflict.

 

[Murishido]

I can't see why he would declare this as an interest, but I don't see the conclict. He's a player agent solely focussed on getting the best outcome for his client. He can talk about his clients until he's blue in the face on 360, I don't see how that compels a CEO to add another zero on to their salary. The argument would be more that it is terrible TV and ratings are plummeting.

If he was the head of Roosters recruitment and he was on national TV spreading rubbish to drive their targets prices down then I could see a conflict.

It's text book conflict.

You say he's "solely focused" but he's not acting as the player agent when commentating or giving views as a journalist.

So there's clearly a potential conflict between expressing his genuine view versus a view that benefits his client.

It's interesting that you think he's got the capability to talk about price down but not up. You've basically discredited the existence of professional sport.

If people can't be influenced by media then the media rights, sponsorship etc are worthless.

Also odd that you can't see that even if media can only be used to unique to talk down a player that he could use that to talk down someone competing for his player's spot or the benchmark player being used for his price, and in turn making his player more valuable.

Your points seem to just reinforce it is a conflict