How it should have been handled

[wibble]

Could be said the Sharks were smart. Given an excuse , offloaded a wildly out of form high cost player.

Maybe, it seems a "Noyce" like thing to do.

In which case the club has acted very shamefully to politicise an incident and condemn a player for it when they really wanted to condemn a player for their form.

That sort of "convenient sacking" would not only be deceitful, it would be a poor long term tactic in my opinion, as no player would ever want to play with a management structure that is happy to manipulate situations to get out of the contracts they have with players.

I'm not convinced Carney is so "out of form" that we should want to offload him, and I'm certain we are a weaker squad without him for the next few years. If the Shark's management could not see that, I would be dreadfully worried at their football knowledge taking us into the future.

 

[webShark]

Maybe, it seems a "Noyce" like thing to do.

In which case the club has acted very shamefully to politicise an incident and condemn a player for it when they really wanted to condemn a player for their form.

That sort of "convenient sacking" would not only be deceitful, it would be a poor long term tactic in my opinion, as no player would ever want to play with a management structure that is happy to manipulate situations to get out of the contracts they have with players.

I'm not convinced Carney is so "out of form" that we should want to offload him, and I'm certain we are a weaker squad without him for the next few years. If the Shark's management could not see that, I would be dreadfully worried at their football knowledge taking us into the future.

Disagree on his form. Useless except for the odd game, Surely an unfair dismissal case in the offing. Oh , steady on . Tribunal might agree with the Sharks. That would be a first. C'mon Todd. Go legal if you have been treated unfairly.

Spare room at Atherton pub?

Should the Roosters and Raiders have sacked him?

Poor old Raiders could have a squad with Carney,Fathead and Doogs. Sounds good on paper. You have to give a shit to win Footy games though.

 

[wibble]

Disagree on his form. Useless except for the odd game, Surely an unfair dismissal case in the offing. Oh , steady on . Tribunal might agree with the Sharks. That would be a first. C'mon Todd. Go legal if you have been treated unfairly.

Spare room at Atherton pub?

Should the Roosters and Raiders have sacked him?

Poor old Raiders could have a squad with Carney,Fathead and Doogs. Sounds good on paper. You have to give a shit to win Footy games though.

On his form, do you mean "current" or since he has been with the club?

I would argue that he is the only reason we made the finals in the last two years, and if he wasn't injured for both finals, we may have been a title contender.

This year, our only really good play has come with both Carney and Robson in the team and looking fit.

We have had plenty of bad games with and without Carney, but the only good we have is when he plays well.

I think the Raiders certainly should have sacked Carney. I think it is very unfair to them that the NRL has no clear and reasonable policy for dealing with off field incidents, and Canberra have effectively donated 3 of their best players (well 2, Fergusson hasn't been allowed to play again yet) to opposition clubs. The NRL should have sacked him, but since they didn't, Canberra had to. His behaviour at the Raiders was dangerous and illegal.

I don't know if the Roosters should have or not. Their squad certainly recovered but they have a lot of advantages over most teams. I'm not sure what motivated the Roosters to sack Carney, but it did seem like internal politics to me, but if it was about discipline and team policy, I hope for their sake they have a culture that promotes consistency and fairness. Not sure if their handling of Pearce is the same as their handling of Carney (probably is, Pearce probably needs some more warnings before getting to Carney levels).

Raiders would be in the 8, not fighting us for the spoon, if they had Carney, Dugan and Fergusson. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have sacked them (I think they were probably right to do so in all 3 cases, Carney was doing illegal and dangerous things, other 2 basically asked to be sacked). Doesn't matter much how "motivated" they are, they are motivated and good enough to be very useful to their teams, on the field.

Not sure how any of us, or a tribunal, could make a call on "unfair dismissal" since the club has not been at all open with us about Carney's sacking, except to say he didn't share the club's "values" or some such nonsense. Not sure you can sack someone for their values, so you'd have to think if it went on that alone, Carney might have a case.

I suspect there is more to his contract and "disrepute" clauses, but I have no idea how legal it all is.

If we (fans, media, NRL, club) decide the sexual orientation, religious values, style of tattoo or whatever of our player's is "disreputable", can they be sacked for that? I don't know. I hope not.

 

[webShark]

On his form, do you mean "current" or since he has been with the club?

I would argue that he is the only reason we made the finals in the last two years, and if he wasn't injured for both finals, we may have been a title contender.

This year, our only really good play has come with both Carney and Robson in the team and looking fit.

We have had plenty of bad games with and without Carney, but the only good we have is when he plays well.

I think the Raiders certainly should have sacked Carney. I think it is very unfair to them that the NRL has no clear and reasonable policy for dealing with off field incidents, and Canberra have effectively donated 3 of their best players (well 2, Fergusson hasn't been allowed to play again yet) to opposition clubs. The NRL should have sacked him, but since they didn't, Canberra had to. His behaviour at the Raiders was dangerous and illegal.

I don't know if the Roosters should have or not. Their squad certainly recovered but they have a lot of advantages over most teams. I'm not sure what motivated the Roosters to sack Carney, but it did seem like internal politics to me, but if it was about discipline and team policy, I hope for their sake they have a culture that promotes consistency and fairness. Not sure if their handling of Pearce is the same as their handling of Carney (probably is, Pearce probably needs some more warnings before getting to Carney levels).

Raiders would be in the 8, not fighting us for the spoon, if they had Carney, Dugan and Fergusson. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have sacked them (I think they were probably right to do so in all 3 cases, Carney was doing illegal and dangerous things, other 2 basically asked to be sacked). Doesn't matter much how "motivated" they are, they are motivated and good enough to be very useful to their teams, on the field.

Not sure how any of us, or a tribunal, could make a call on "unfair dismissal" since the club has not been at all open with us about Carney's sacking, except to say he didn't share the club's "values" or some such nonsense. Not sure you can sack someone for their values, so you'd have to think if it went on that alone, Carney might have a case.

I suspect there is more to his contract and "disrepute" clauses, but I have no idea how legal it all is.

If we (fans, media, NRL, club) decide the sexual orientation, religious values, style of tattoo or whatever of our player's is "disreputable", can they be sacked for that? I don't know. I hope not.

Thanks Wibb. Made me think. Still don't agree but interested to hear other views. Funny seems he cant go to Japanese Union. Too many tats. Can't be sacked for them , just don't get a job in the first place. Maybe that's the stance the Sharks should have taken with TC. Clearly a gamble that didn't pay.

I never thought I would defend the crap that is PC. Just amazes me that in these times when PC gathers pace every day , Sharks fans start a petition to reinstate a bubbler.

Can't imagine the heat on the Sharks if they reinstated him. Have a good day mate.

 

[Vin Fizz]

I tell ya what gangsters. We wont have to look to far to see how the alternative approach pans out. Look at Nth Melbourne and the AFL over the next couple.

 

[Feej]

We'll all be laughing about this next year, when we win the comp.

 

[wibble]

Thanks Wibb. Made me think. Still don't agree but interested to hear other views. Funny seems he cant go to Japanese Union. Too many tats. Can't be sacked for them , just don't get a job in the first place. Maybe that's the stance the Sharks should have taken with TC. Clearly a gamble that didn't pay.

I never thought I would defend the crap that is PC. Just amazes me that in these times when PC gathers pace every day , Sharks fans start a petition to reinstate a bubbler.

Can't imagine the heat on the Sharks if they reinstated him. Have a good day mate.

Well I guess now we can say it didn't pay, since we never won with Carney, and now we don't have him we have no play makers.

So we would have been better developing someone for 3 years.

I can't possibly see a scenario from here where he gets reinstated. The NRL has already pretty much slammed the door on his career, and from that we can imply that no matter what the club did, Carney would still be gone.

I also can't imagine the day when the NRL will say "We don't mind if players piss in their mouths, or get blowjobs from dogs or actresses, or piss on the field, and it ends up in the media, because none of those things actually hurt anyone." and if players don't know now that the NRL will care about these things, they are very stupid (and Carney is probably in the "very" rather than just "quite" stupid category).

I think it is wrong to care about these things, and worry that it allows us to care about other things, like a player's sexual orientation (or tattoos apparently, in Japanese Rugby!) that will result in persecution of anyone who is different, not just anyone who is stupid.

But since obviously many people do care about other people's personal business, whilst that is the reality of the corporate driven world, Carney was always at risk in our shambolic and vulnerable state, with his past record and a media agenda against us, of being sacked for any incident, and he had to be aware of that.

So he had the choice to not care what people thought of him and damn the consequences, and I agree he shouldn't have to care about what people think of him, but he has to wear the consequences of his choice (even if unfair).

I agree that other views are the main way that we learn about our own views. Hopefully some of the morally outraged will learn from other views that they can't try to enforce their sensibilities on every one else without at least some resistance, and hopefully that helps them question the source of their outrage.

Thanks for sharing your views, and you have as good a day as a Sharks fan can have these days! (actually, I'm mostly ignoring football this year, just enjoying watching my little ones grow older, its much less frustrating than watching the Sharks).

 

[Bastard Squad]

We should erect a statue like they did in Poland for Lenin.

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel...n-urinating-lenin-statute-20140702-3b78s.html

 

[Surrogate]

NRL gives Todd Carney the rough end
Have your say » Carlie Walker
Carlie Walker | 2nd Jul 2014 12:00 PM

THE vast majority of people don't want or need to know that Todd Carney was photographed in a "lewd act".

Maybe a couple of thousand of Carney's 40,000 Twitter followers would have accidentally seen the photo - and there are always those who seek out such things (myself included).

But it was the media that ensured millions, not thousands, of people would know about this photograph - and it is Cronulla Sharks who are guilty of overreacting to it.

How does it benefit anyone to know about this photo? Why do people care?

Why do we get our knickers in a knot over a stupid photo and then drop the ball when something happens that actually matters?

Todd Carney's career is in tatters, but lining up for the North Queensland Cowboys every weekend is Robert Lui.

He was banned from the game for a year after kicking and head-butting his girlfriend in 2012.

Former Cronulla winger Isaac Gordon received a nine-match ban for pushing his heavily pregnant girlfriend against a wall in 2011.

Neither of those men was sacked from his club, or embarrassed and shamed the way Todd Carney has been embarrassed and shamed.

In fact, at the time North Queensland issued a statement saying the club would support Lui's ongoing counselling with a view to him returning to the team during the next season.

I bet most people don't even remember these men being in the press, but everyone will remember Carney's faux pas.

I see the message the NRL is sending. Clearly it's a far greater crime to indulge in a silly prank than to assault a woman.

http://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/news/nrl-gives-todd-carney-the-rough-end/2306440/

I agree with BTR, Noyce should have rode out the media hysteria.
Women don't really care about the Todd Carney's lewd act. There are more serious issues to worry about.

 

[Mr Angry]

I see the message the NRL is sending. Clearly it's a far greater crime to indulge in a silly prank than to assault a woman.

Indeed.

 

[Surely]

I know a couple of women who were dissapointed Todd's willy wasn't bigger, but they thought getting sacked for a joke photo was a bit harsh.

 

[TheMoneyBoxMan]

Hey guys Im not a sharks supporter but just wanted to say I feel for you guys and really hope that things pick up for you. For what it is worth I think sacking him was harsh. He was stupid no doubt and what he did was disgusting but as a woman I think that the most disgusting thing is that women beaters and players who grope random women in pubs are allowed to collect their pay packets and play each week. Their sins are much worse in my book than seeing how far you can wizz. Anyway I hope your club recovers and you can salvage some of the season. Good luck

 

[Madsharkie]

Thanks for the well wishes.
It's nice to know other teams supporters feel for our pain. Normally we only get trolls in here trying to sink the boot while we're down.

 

[taipan]

How about all the chances Todd has been given since 2006.How about his behaviour giving the code a black eye.How about it further affecting our sponsorship chances.How about it turning off people who have just a passing interest in the game.
I'm all for second chances ,but geez dozens?
He is 28 and on $650,000 per year,and he behaves like a d*ck.

The question has to be asked,would it have happened if Flanno was in charge.Maybe he would have pulled his head in.

Women don't care about the lewd act,not what I have heard.Even Blocker thought it was embarrassing and pathetic.

It's not a case of media hysteria,it''s on social media,you have to be on another planet to miss it.I'ts even on CNN FFS.'
We all know the media laps this up and front pages it,then why the hell do players continue to do it.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

You keep on the high moral horse. it alwasy works for us.
You think Melbourne will sack Chambers? Forget about the fact he probably did nothing. But he was there with the coach & 2 other players that have been accused of assault prior.
Do you think their "dumbness" as carch puts it , will get him smacked? Do you think he will play for QLD? Do you think the integrity commission will go "over the top".
C'mon, whats your predictions?

 

[Surrogate]

Is Blocker a woman?

Based on experience the hysteria will die down in two weeks.
Sometimes a knee jerk reaction will do more harm than good.
Steady leadership is required. Imagine if Souths had sacked George Burgess for sharing his genitals via social media.

 

[taipan]

You keep on the high moral horse. it alwasy works for us.
You think Melbourne will sack Chambers? Forget about the fact he probably did nothing. But he was there with the coach & 2 other players that have been accused of assault prior.
Do you think their "dumbness" as carch puts it , will get him smacked? Do you think he will play for QLD? Do you think the integrity commission will go "over the top".
C'mon, whats your predictions?

High moral horse:sarcasm:. A horse that wants the club to survive with players who actually care ,and not some who don't bother addressing an alcohol problem.Particularly when one is given dozens of chances in the past.

If being on a moral high horse is criticising some for continually sh*t kicking the code ,then I offer no apology.Forty years gives me some say.

Chambers has been involved in how many prior incidents? Get back to me when he is sacked from two clubs prior .

If he is found to have done something wrong he will be stood down.Just as Ferguson could not get registered prior to 30th June by the NRL.
Anything else you would like to know?

Memo this aint the 70s and 80s when players could get away with it.

 

[taipan]

Is Blocker a woman?

Based on experience the hysteria will die down in two weeks.
Sometimes a knee jerk reaction will do more harm than good.
Steady leadership is required. Imagine if Souths had sacked George Burgess for sharing his genitals via social media.

I*f you want him to be,just imagine.
Blocker is a guy who at least has some nouse when it comes to this particular type of idiocy .He vented his feelings on NRL 360.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Did you support the 1 chance player in his moments of glory for the Sharks? Were you supportive of signing a player was not given the same level of chances at our club, as others?
I would have thought you would ahve been yelling from the bleeches to the club saying "2.5 million dollars is too risky for a 1 chance player that we are building our team around with his incredible recruitment drawing powers"?
No?

 

[Surrogate]

I think it was irresponsible of the Sharks management to sign Todd up, being fully aware of his past and imposing a zero tolerance policy in his contract. They set him up for failure and now have washed their hands.