_Johnsy said:
What, this blatant one is not enough ?
For you maybe, but I doubt it'd take much to set you off.
Do you remember when two unknown clubs were "talking" to Kev WALTERS about leaving the Broncs. The broncs cried foul at every opportunity about clubs trying to sign their players from under their noses. 2 weeks later they had the audacity to parade Mundine in a Broncs jersey even though he still had months to serve on his contract.
A lot more tact could have been shown through the Mundine fiasco; no arguments here.
Before that a Tallis sat out the last year of his contract after signing with the Broncs. I had a beer with him a few years ago at the Paddo. he told me that the club organised its main sponsors to pay him the equivilant of his last year.
Yeah, I spoke to Tallis' aunties' hairdresser the other day and she said the exact same thing.
No offense, but name dropping isn't always the best way to prove a point.
The club made sure there was to be no other club allowed in SE QLD (not sure what year 2005 I think), via the terms signed whilst with Super league, and they still whinge over talent scouts from other clubs coming into SE QLD.
Merely ensuring the club's future - was it selfish? Yes, but hardly hypocritcal.
It's amazing how posters like yourself will acknowledge the presence of Sydney talent scouts in SEQLD, yet continue on about how the Broncos have the entire region to themselves.
Danny BUDERUS tackle. After the Knights played manly the broncs/bennet made several comments in media saying he should be banned because he got the player in a dangerous position. They also made it abundantly clear that the safety of all players needs to be protected at all times, and a suspension should be automatic.
One week later we have the thaiday tackle :sarcasm:
Woh.... talk about clutching at straws. Firstly, Thaiday's tackle was perfectly legitimate - not even close to the degree of danger in Buderus' tackle.
Do you suggest that Bennett and co. should have demanded Thaiday be suspended immediately? Practically every coach/official associated with the NRL will say that these dangerous throws must be eliminated from our game through suspensions (I bet you could find a quote or two from Buderus/Hagan on the matter), but when it comes to their own players, they'll fight tooth and nail to have the same suspensions overthrown. The idea of a team forfeiting a key player through suspension in the week preceeding a preliminary final makes no sense whatsoever.
Locky has made a call that if Sailor, Tiquiri and Rogers come back they should be excluded from SOO along with any other player who goes away from NRL for the money.
Yet Thorn and Carrol were still picked for SOO this year, So what is it to be Locky ??? Me thinks they like to have their cake and eat it too.
Thorn and Carroll have been back in the NRL for a few seasons now and qualified for Origin well before the articles creation; assuming the best of Lockyer, it could well be a case of out sight out of mind.
Besides, what on earth would be Lockyer's motivation for advocating Thorn and Carroll's participation in Origin, while demanding the exclusion of Sailor, Tuquiri and Rogers (all Queenslanders)? It's completely illogical.