Joey risks his future

[Kiwi]

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

Playing in an ESL game is not a personal reason, wanting to win something without earning it is not a personal thing.

 

[Razor]

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

But it's clear as day there's a News vandetta against him with Barry Dicks attack on him in this mornings paper, Webcke(a player from a News Ltd owned club) writing in a News Ltd owned publication(Big League) saying he should be banned for playing for Australia ever again, Gillmeister writing in a News Ltd owned newspaper saying he should be banned for life, etc.

 

[Razor]

Playing in an ESL game is not a personal reason, wanting to win something without earning it is not a personal thing.

But he will be earning it. And it is a personal reason.

 

[Mr Saab]

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.



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.

again you bring lockyer into it. I guarantee Lockyer wouldnt even do this Johns stunt for these reasons :

1) he is the australian captain
2) his bronco team doesnt miss semi finals. Last time was 1991. Thus he would never want or consider to play in ESL and ride the coat tails of a team that has busted its way to 4th spot (maybe 4rd after this weekend)

I cant believe you would still bring webcke into this. They are chalk and cheese. Webcke didnt turn down the jersey to play park football with the Roma Rats. He stayed at home with his family. Terry Lamb did the same when he missed the 1990 roo tour.

 

[Mr Saab]

But he will be earning it. And it is a personal reason.

he wont be earning crap. 4 games in england and he is a hero? :roll:
If he played 20 games that would be different.

 

[Kiwi]

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.

You can carry it on if you like, I'm not ashamed of being a Broncos fan during the SL war. Just gets a bit tedious going around and around every time. I can just see it now, you'll be 80 not out and still bitter about it, of course you'll have one mean mother of an ulcer by then.

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?

The ARL showed concerns and were going to pull out and only went due to a shortened tour. Two planes had been flown into buildings, he had a young family and made a choice, he stood by that choice. Webcke doesn't deserve to be compared to a guy that wants to win something unearned rather than play a test.

 

[Raider_69]

Others remember and rightfully so. SS should not be forgotten. The SS supporters should be forced to live in shame.

Shame? what shame? the shame of standing by our teams no matter what? There's no shame in that. Us fans had no say in what they did, we mearly stuck by our team. Shame needs to go to those who through their team away, those fickle bastards who have no loyalty to their team.

I didnt have a vote in the SL debarcle but i had a choice, to stick by the team i loved or to ditch them and show how to be fickled fan. I stuck by my team and i have no shame what so ever for that.

 

[Mr Saab]

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?

yes you are Mr Knowitall in 2005...but in 2001 you and many many many others had NFI what was going to happen.

 

[Kiwi]

But he will be earning it. And it is a personal reason.

How is turning up for the last few games of the year earning it? The hard yards have been done by the other players week in week out of the ESL. Johns is just showing up for the a few rounds and the finals, he is showing up for the glory.

If Johns was realeased by the Knights and he went to say the Dragons for the last few games of the year and they won the comp, would Johns have earned the premiership? No of course not.

 

[Mr Saab]

kiwi...

stop talking sense, you will confuse Razor

 

[Raider_69]

Its aiken to a sprint star coming on the track in the closing stages of a 10k marathon, flying past the leader with 100 to go and claiming to be the champion. Its a joke.
He hasnt done the hard yards to get him to the finals, its a completely undeserving situation

 

[Kiwi]

I bet people would expect Joey to get the Man of Steel award aswell.

 

[Snoop]

Reporting: So Joey, you're willing to give up the Green & Gold for the ... um ... What colours do Warrignton wear?
Joey: I have no idea.
Reporting: Well that sums it up folks.

 

[Green Machine]

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.

Packer signed a deal with News Ltd in late 1996, prior to the 1997 season on a boat off the Bay of Islands in New Zealand for the media carve up. Why would he need to run back to the ARL. I’ve got no idea what kind of deal the QRL did whilst the NSWRL were on holidays. Wasn’t Warren Lockwood the President of the ARL? I thought Tosser Turner, Ross Livermore and John McDonnell were anti Broncos. I thought that’s why they started up the Crushers. If the players signed in April 1995 with Super League, that would 18 months, tops.

As for the coat of arms, I glad the ARL have put it back on the Kangaroo jumper. I never liked that two kangaroo and trophy thing they had. In 1994, when the ARL introduced it, the reason they gave was because of copy rights so no one could copy their logo with replica jumpers. Something that will piss you off Razar, is the Super League Test team proudly wore the coat of arms on their jersey for the 1997 international season against the official New Zealand and Great Britain teams.

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.

Gee, you have serious problems. Now you’re down on poor old Shane. Webcke declined to go on a tour. So what? He was not the first player to do that and he won’t be the last. 17 players were unavailable for the 2003 tour. George Piggins hated being away from home and wanted to come home on the 1975 tour. Terry Fahey and John Harvey decline to tour in 1978. Terry Fahey played a Test Match 2 years later. I can’t remember anyone holding it against him. Terry Lamb declined the 1982 tour and went on the 1986 tour.

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?

Langer? You’d boo Santa Claus! Even Phil Gould was over the moon that Alfie came back to lead Queensland. I love NSW and I thought it was great for Rugby League. Finally, one more time for the dumbies, "I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ANDREW JOHNS GOING TO PLAY IN SUPER LEAGUE"

 

[Green Machine]

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.

Totally agree

 

[Green Machine]

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.

Well he is now. He has a column written under his name in the Sunday Telegraph

 

[Razor]

I’ve got no idea what kind of deal the QRL did whilst the NSWRL were on holidays.

The merger with Super League

Gee, you have serious problems. Now you’re down on poor old Shane. Webcke declined to go on a tour. So what? He was not the first player to do that and he won’t be the last. 17 players were unavailable for the 2003 tour. George Piggins hated being away from home and wanted to come home on the 1975 tour. Terry Fahey and John Harvey decline to tour in 1978. Terry Fahey played a Test Match 2 years later. I can’t remember anyone holding it against him. Terry Lamb declined the 1982 tour and went on the 1986 tour.

Webcke has publicly commented that Johns should be banned for LIFE from playing for Australia if he declines to play 1 match. Webck declined to play 3 matches, and kept playing.

 

[Green Machine]

The merger with Super League.

I thought all the ARL clubs except for South Sydney and Balmain voted in favour to form a 14 team National Rugby League competition after News Ltd, PBL, Telstra and Optus sorted out their differences.

Webcke has publicly commented that Johns should be banned for LIFE from playing for Australia if he declines to play 1 match. Webck declined to play 3 matches, and kept playing.

I just purchased a copy of Big League this morning. I just can’t find that bit where he says he should be BANNED for life. The article to me seems he is critical of the ARL (not Johns) for having no firm rules which could lead to precedent where English clubs could sign up a heap of NRL players not involved in the NRL final series that could leave Australia without their top players for a Test match

 

[Razor]

I thought all the ARL clubs except for South Sydney and Balmain voted in favour to form a 14 team National Rugby League competition after News Ltd, PBL, Telstra and Optus sorted out their differences.

They did but before it got to that stage the ARL had to approve the deal. The NSWRL delegates were on holidays, so the QRL delegates approved it themselves. Then after that the clubs did, but they didn't have a choice because the ARL could kick them out if they didn't.

I just purchased a copy of Big League this morning. I just can’t find that bit where he says he should be BANNED for life. The article to me seems he is critical of the ARL (not Johns) for having no firm rules which could lead to precedent where English clubs could sign up a heap of NRL players not involved in the NRL final series that could leave Australia without their top players for a Test match

Exactly the rules don't say if you don't play 1 match you can't play the others. There doesn't need to be a rule to say that. You only need a rule if "you miss 1 test you miss them all". You don't have a rule saying "if you miss a 1 test you can still play others". If you have that rule, then you have rules for everything, like "If you drive a car you can still play tests" and "If you're gay you can still play tests", etc. You don't make rules for who can play because that will be 1,000,000,000 pages long, you make rules for those who can't play. There is no rule saying he can't.

And he's not a very legal person is he? He mentions that it is accepted that players in England can't play rep football, but it's not an official rule. That's why Langer coming back and Smith playing in 2003 happened. Now Webcke is a smart man which surprises me he doesn't realise this. They can't make a rule "If you play in a competition outside Australia you can't play rep football". If that was an official rule, then it'll be taken to court and the players will win on restraint of trade with the annoucement "They must be considered". Now officially the players in the EPL are considered but not good enough(even though they aren't considered). So it can't be a rule. (remember the ARL rule that if you wanted to play in the ARL tests you had to be signed with the ARL. Players who didn't sign with us and signed with SL could not be picked - well the SL Players took it to court and won saying that even though they weren't ARL players they had to be considered for ARL matches - then the ARL considered them and said they weren't good enough)

As a matter of fact I think even the "If you miss 1 test because you're playing elsewhere you miss them all" rule will even be a restraint of trade and Johns will win if he takes it to court saying they must consider him. So they won't be able to have it as a rule anyway.

 

[Kiwi]

As a matter of fact I think even the "If you miss 1 test because you're playing elsewhere you miss them all" rule will even be a restraint of trade and Johns will win if he takes it to court saying they must consider him. So they won't be able to have it as a rule anyway.

Even if he did take it to court if he missed out, which I doubt he would, they only have to consider him, doesn't mean they have to select him.