Joey risks his future

[Raider_69]

i said i was leaving this debate. unlike other LU'ers when i make such a statement i leave it there and will in this case aswell. My point has been made, proven and not argued against. You idiots are trying to turn it into another ARL v SL thread which i have no interest in debating as i believe the game wont recover from such events whilst they are continueally brought up. Learn from mistakes, no harp on them.

BTW how was the atmosphere in that Arko - Sticky convo, clearly you were actually there and know it all

 

[Green Machine]

Raiders dickheads still claiming Ricky Stuart didn't turn his bac on his country, despite this conversation between him and Ken Arthurson.

ARKO: Ricky, we will make you test captain. You will captain your country in the World Cup, and 3 tests v New Zealand this year.

RICKY: NO. I'd rather have the $$$$.

Then all of a sudden Raider IQ 65 has massive feelings of sorrow for Nat Wood, the bloke he never even knew before tonight, who has had a career of being dropped for players scuch as Adrian Lam.

Once again Misty, thank you for the kind words.
I didn’t realise it was Ken who was throwing the ARL captaincy around like confetti to encourage a player to leave his club and go and play for another club. I thought it was Jamie and Bozo. I thought to make the Australian side, the first thing you would have to do is gain it on merit. I thought the second thing, you would have to be a regular selected player in the Australian team, which be strange considering the selectors who select the team had thought Ricky Stuart was not worthy of a home or New Zealand Test selection in the past. He wasn’t even a first choice selection on the 1990, 1992 or 1994 tours to England. I should not be surprised that you and all the old ARL loyalist on that deserted island (can someone tell them the war is over!) think it is normal behaviour to hand out Australian selection for players to move to a certain after clubs like Manly made an art form out of it in the 80’s and early 90’s. But what has got me perplexed is Misty, is that you think the ARL would not have offered Ricky more money to defect from the Raiders to Manly or Easts. Considering Jamie, Bozo and John Fordham came flying into Canberra on Kerry’s private jet to talk to Ricky. We have all seen what a great manager John Fordham is in abstracting money out of contract; case in point: The friends of the Waratahs V ARL/NRL last season and this latest Warrington deal. I think Bozo, Jamie and John would have turned up with more than just their dicks in their hands.

P.S. Graham Appo looks like the player that will be deregistered to make way for Joey,

 

[Razor]

Why would it have been a very long time out of international football for Ricky Stuart considering the New Zealand, French and RFL had already signed up to Super League? Why would it have been long time when Packer cut a deal with News Ltd 12 months later?

Playing EXHIBITION internationals are NOT test matches - heck they weren't even allowed to have the coat of arms on the jersey because they were fake matches - they applied to the federal government and were turned down for that very reason. And the deal wasn't cut until 2.5 years after they signed. And Packer didn't organise the deal. The QRL did (remember the NSWRL representives were on leave, so it was all the QRLs doing) and we all know that the QRL likes sucking the Broncos dicks, and was widely criticised that they agreed to the deal, but everyone knows why they did. Also Ricky wouldn't have known that when he signed with Scum League either.

Face the facts. He turned down the chance to play for his country PERMENTALY to play club football. Johns is turning down the chance to play ONE game to play a GRAND FINAL. Webcke turned down the chance to play 3 matches 3.5 years ago, and I'm sure you were fine with that and for him to play in future. The Stuart, Other Super Scum players, and Webcke incidents which you don't have a problem with tells me that the reason is because it's Johns only, and no other.

Also I'm sure you were fine with Langer coming back from England for 1 game. Why do you not say he should be banned for life because he went to England knowing he'll be missing matches?

 

[Mr Saab]

razor...
langer and webcke didnt go and play another game of football.
Langer came back to australia and played in Origin...no relevance in this instance.
Webcke stayed home and didnt play football....no relevance.

the issue here is that Johns quite possibly will choose a ESL game over a test match...thats the issue.

 

[Razor]

langer and webcke didnt go and play another game of football.
Langer came back to australia and played in Origin...no relevance in this instance.

Langer was playing matches of football in England while quite a few Origin matches which he skipped were on. He then came back to Origin. He went to England knowing he'll be forgoing his chance, but went anyway. So he turned down the QLD jumper for money (using your argument because the only reason according to you Johns is going to England is for money so that's why Langer would be too). He then wanted the QLD jumper back.

So gee you're not a hypocrit are you? Saying if Johns goes to England and missing ONE test he should be banned for playing for life, but Loanger can go to England and miss several Origins, and still be able to play.

It is very relevant. It's all about a player going to England, and missing rep football. You said Langer should still be able to play, and say Johns shouldn't.

 

[Mr Saab]

where did i say langer should play? I like how you say "you said this and you said that" yet you cant quote me.
Langer didnt turn down the jumper for money...he "retired" from football, then went and signed with warrington. He played origin for QLD, he didnt play for warrington in the prime of his career and chose Warrington over his country. Langer was out of the picture as far as OZ test football is concerned as soon as he went to England.
When he came back to the Broncos in 2002 he didnt play for australia.

 

[Razor]

where did i say langer should play? I like how you say "you said this and you said that" yet you cant quote me.

I didn't say you said he should play. I said you never said he shouldn't have been able to play Origin after going to England.

 

[Mr Saab]

so now this is about origin? make up your mind.

Again i will state the question or scenario :

The Warrington wolves make the GF in ESL. Does Johns choose the GF or does he choose a test match for Australia. If he chooses the GF should he be able to come back into the test team. Ignore the fact that it is "Lord Andrew Johns" for a second (please). Should a player be able to turn down a test jersey and come back into the team?

 

[Kiwi]

Langer was playing matches of football in England while quite a few Origin matches which he skipped were on. He then came back to Origin. He went to England knowing he'll be forgoing his chance, but went anyway. So he turned down the QLD jumper for money (using your argument because the only reason according to you Johns is going to England is for money so that's why Langer would be too). He then wanted the QLD jumper back.

So gee you're not a hypocrit are you? Saying if Johns goes to England and missing ONE test he should be banned for playing for life, but Loanger can go to England and miss several Origins, and still be able to play.

It is very relevant. It's all about a player going to England, and missing rep football. You said Langer should still be able to play, and say Johns shouldn't.

Every player that goes the play ESL does so knowing they wont be selected for rep games. The fact that QLD wanted Langer to play the final match isn't Langer's fault, Langer didn't go over to the ESL expecting to still be selected if he made himself available. You may not like it, but there is a difference, Langer made the choice to come out of retirment to play ESL, QLD made the choice of asking him to play that 3rd game, he accepted.

Johns knew that if he signed his contract and chose to miss the first test to play ESL he could be over looked for the tri nations series. He still chose to take that risk, a final farewell series in the Australian jumper can't mean that much to him if he was willing to risk it for something he could have done at the end of next year or the year after.

Not even gonna get into the SL debate, alot of sh*t happened and there only seems to be a certain group of fans who can't move on.

As for Johns shouldn't be permitted to play rep footy again for this, I disagree, he wants to play the ANZAC test next year and or Origin then good luck to him. The only problem I have is him saying sorry would rather do something else for the first game of the series but I want to play the rest. He is either available for the entire series or not.

 

[perverse]

He is either available for the entire series or not.

if the ARL decides that then thats fine, but it would be a shame to miss out on his brilliance combined with lockyer.

 

[Kiwi]

if the ARL decides that then thats fine, but it would be a shame to miss out on his brilliance combined with lockyer.

Yes it would be a shame, but thats his choice.

 

[Razor]

Should a player be able to turn down a test jersey and come back into the team?

Webcke did in 2001
8 players did in 1996

The fact that QLD wanted Langer to play the final match isn't Langer's fault, Langer didn't go over to the ESL expecting to still be selected if he made himself available. You may not like it, but there is a difference, Langer made the choice to come out of retirment to play ESL, QLD made the choice of asking him to play that 3rd game, he accepted.

But the fact is he was asked. You said Johns shouldn't be asked. So it's one rule for Broncos players and another rule for others?

Not even gonna get into the SL debate, alot of sh*t happened and there only seems to be a certain group of fans who can't move on.

I notice it's only the Super Scum supporters that want SS totally forgotten about. It's always the people on the bad side that want history to be forgotten. All throughout history that's been the case.

------

I also noticed Webcke in this edition of Big League say that Johns shouldn't ever play for Australia again, and any other player who doesn't want to play in a test shouldn't either. Then he brought up his 2001 case, and said that was different because he didn't want to play for personal reasons. Gee Shane, Johns doesn't want to play the first test either for personal reasons.

 

[Mr Saab]

razor...again you are twisting facts.
Webcke turned the trip for saftey reasons. The same as when Stuart McGill turned down Sri Lanka for safety reasons. Didnt affect him in any way with regards to future tours.

why bring 1996 into this? SL was a crazy time and people did crazy crazy things.

 

[Raider_69]

why bring 1996 into this? SL was a crazy time and people did crazy crazy things.

because its the only straw he can clutch
he cant understand that SL and this issue are completely seperate ones with absolutely no relevence to each other in any way.
Basically he is a few snags short of a BBQ

 

[Razor]

Webcke turned the trip for saftey reasons

And Johns is turning down the match for career purposes.

If you start making exceptions what reasons are justified and what reasons aren't? They are both personal reasons.

why bring 1996 into this?

Because it's a perfect example.

If Johns is refused permission by the board to skip this test and still play in the others, then it's proof beyond doubt that the game is run solely by News Ltd who favour their own clubs and former players and have a major bias against players who did not sign with them. I for one will be cancelling Foxtel, my newspaper subscription, never buy Big League again(until News Ltd no longer publish it anyway), or support any other News Ltd company until the day I die if they bar him. Because it will not be a policy reason because it's been done in the past; it will be solely because he told them to piss off back in 1995. And people don't have strong changes in opinion. Several board members strongly supported the right of Johns to skip the one match. Now these several board members have swung around and strongly oppose he should do that, and be barred from the tour. Tells you something. Their bosses got into them and told them what opinion to have. If it was Lockyer there wouldn't be a problem. I guarentee that.

 

[perverse]

if the ARL really are interested in the current state of the international game whatsoever, they'll let him play the remaining games in the tri-nations.
what isn't in the interest of the national game is scheduling a grand final on the same day as a test.

 

[Kiwi]

But the fact is he was asked. You said Johns shouldn't be asked. So it's one rule for Broncos players and another rule for others?

Actually no it is different. Langer was asked to come out of retirement from rep footy to play one last game for QLD. Johns wants the ARL to select him for a series knowing he will put an ESL game ahead of a test match.

I notice it's only the Super Scum supporters that want SS totally forgotten about. It's always the people on the bad side that want history to be forgotten. All throughout history that's been the case.

It depends on what side of the fence you sat as to who was right or wrong. I guess losers are always more bitter than the winners.

I also noticed Webcke in this edition of Big League say that Johns shouldn't ever play for Australia again, and any other player who doesn't want to play in a test shouldn't either. Then he brought up his 2001 case, and said that was different because he didn't want to play for personal reasons. Gee Shane, Johns doesn't want to play the first test either for personal reasons.

I was different, Sept 11 had just happened, he had a new born child at home and chose not to risk travel at that time. Webcke made himself unavailable for the whole tour for personal reasons. Johns wants to put an ESL game ahead of a test jumper, because he wants to play in a ESL GF he hasn't earnt.

 

[Razor]

if the ARL really are interested in the current state of the international game whatsoever, they'll let him play the remaining games in the tri-nations.

That won't happen because News don't want Johns as captain because he didn't sign with them. News wants him barred from the tour so their little golden boy Lockyer can be captain for the whole series, not just the 1 game.

 

[Kiwi]

That won't happen because News don't want Johns as captain because he didn't sign with them. News wants him barred from the tour so their little golden boy Lockyer can be captain for the whole series, not just the 1 game.

It wont matter if Johns is there after the 1st test, Lockyer will remain captain.

 

[Razor]

It depends on what side of the fence you sat as to who was right or wrong. I guess losers are always more bitter than the winners.

Nope. Only SS supporters want all SS talk stopped.

Just like the Nazi's want the holocaust forgotten, criminals want their crimes forgotten, etc. Others remember and rightfully so. SS should not be forgotten. The SS supporters should be forced to live in shame.

I was different, Sept 11 had just happened, he had a new born child at home and chose not to risk travel at that time.

The chances of an attack were 1,000,000,000,000 to 1. He was far more likely to be killed in a car accident in Brisbane than any attack. So did he stop driving as well, because it wasn't worth the risk?

Webcke made himself unavailable for the whole tour for personal reasons. Johns wants to put an ESL game ahead of a test jumper, because he wants to play in a ESL GF he hasn't earnt.

Webcke skipped for personal reasons. Johns is skipping for personal reasons. No diff.