Sterlo asked questions and Arthur answered themQuick summary?
He said that in hindsight he should have kept him.
the NRL said they would do it if Parra didn't so there was no choiceCoaches are fallible and sometimes (however rarely), the common fan knows best. There were plenty of people suggesting we keep the team together and forego the points, as this would benefit the team more in the long term. Turns out BA now agrees.
He specifically referred to the fact other merkins have departed .... and said we did what we had to at the time .... i dont think he regretssplitting the team up so much as we have lost a few since kinda making it unnecessary to lose a strong player
the NRL said they would do it if Parra didn't so there was no choice
We also lost the next few games which made it pretty much impossible toHe specifically referred to the fact other merkins have departed .... and said we did what we had to at the time .... i dont think he regretssplitting the team up so much as we have lost a few since kinda making it unnecessary to lose a strong player
What would the NRL do? Everything I've read stated we couldn't accumulate points unless we shed players, not that we couldn't play each week. Do you have a source?the NRL said they would do it if Parra didn't so there was no choice
Arthur never even mentioned what you're bullshitting about
noYou think the NRL could just pick and choose who we stop paying?
it was posted here ages agoWhat would the NRL do? Everything I've read stated we couldn't accumulate points unless we shed players, not that we couldn't play each week. Do you have a source?