I think there is another side to the story.
I'm guessing Tapp makes money from this, and seeks access to the clubs and players for free. Same deal I guess that the print media and radio, and tv news items. However, where does one draw the line? Saints get paid for broadcasting their games, somewhere the line between paid and obligation has to be drawn.
Also, Saints would have no control over the presentation. I haven't seen the show - sounds harmless enough, but in light of what Cronulla went through -and their ex player Matthew Johns - last year, noone can blame a club for tightening up media access.
I'm guessing Doust should be blamed for being over protective if anything.
Someone also mentioned Bennet - who generally has the same relationship with the media as rabbits have with mixamatosis. It wouldn't be out of the question for Bennet to have said no, leaving Doust little choice. After Darius Boyd's Harpo Marx impersonation and the general media attacks over Saints alleged GF T shirts and their refusal to move their rightly earned home semi, here's no free beer and sausage sangers for media workers at the Taj Mahal any more.
2 other points.
1) A few years ago C9 was doing a special on FOG's. All contacted players agreed to be interviewed for free, except Allan Langer, who wanted a fee. Langer wasn't used.
2) Clubs are under increasing financial pressure at a time when the demands on their time by the media is growing. Currently - in response to some pressure from the NRL, GWS and the general public - players are all over the place doing school visits and PR work. This is right in the middle of the trial period and just before the start of the season. It's a very busy time for clubs.
Having said all that - the fact that 15 clubs could fit them in suggests that Saints could have too, but it doesn't mean they are wrong.
