Paul Kent

[oikee]

At least Kent and Ikin finally came out and said what everyone have been saying now since the Bulldogs incident many a moon ago. The games image is mud and players have gone unpunished by being able to sign massive deals with other clubs that leach for gain. I dont need to mention these clubs surely, i mean you never see the Broncos pick up a player that has peewee-ed or bubbled or bashed someone.

No, these parasite clubs are holding the game back, they continue to sweep the rubbish under the carpet and allow brain dead comments to go through to the keeper.
This has to stop, ex-players who support this rubbish need to be ousted, (Sterlo if he thinks these players are just being kids, Joey Johns seems to love to support these players,) well it is dragging the code, the fans(the few that are left) and sponsors into the gutter.
Problem is we can all walk away, and i think we are starting to see that now, even TV has less and less ads for NRL. They show rugby, soccer and AFL,,,,, hardly a Steeden to be seen.

Diehards are walking. That is when you know the code is hitting rock bloody bottom.

 

[PARRA_FAN]

I agree, players now need to rethink their actions and take responsibility.

Paul Kent is just like the rest of us passionate fans, we're so sick of one off incident after another. Seems like every week, there's a drama and most of it is alcohol related.

We should be talking about how our game is growing, new talent coming through, which team is gonna win this year's competition, instead we keep getting tarnished for off field behaviour.

Kent is right, players need to look at themselves and try and prove themselves on and off the field they are great role models.

 

[taipan]

Not a Kent fan,but as Shark's fan agree with him holous bolous on this one.

The game's image gets dented every time a player stuffs up,more so when it involves a repeat offender.

 

[Perth Red]

I thought what he and Ikin had to say was fair and made sense on NRL360 this week. I don't think you can ever stop unintelligent boofheads doing stupid things (if you could we wouldn;t need so many jails!) but you can draw a line in the sand and respond to it in a strong way. They were a bit hypocritical though in saying the NRL should thrown these players out but then saying it is ok for Ferguson to be playing in the NRL again next year.

The flip side is we really need a major identity makeover for the NRL during the next few years to be more attractive to all social types and get more families along to games.

It is clear from the comments of Carney and other players that they have learnt nothing and want to blame everyone but themselves for their actions.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Hate him or loathe him, What Paul Kent said on NRL 360 last night was 100% spot on.

The players, coaches and officials sticking up for Carney are dragging the entire code down to his level of stupid.

Yes the code has an obligation to stand by a player who has f**ked up. But the code DOES NOT have an obligation to stand by a player who has f**ked up as many times as Carney. The players need to be aware this type of juvenile, geniused behaviour will no longer be tolerated.

I read this morning both Nate Myles and Frank Paul Nu'uausala, who were the two players disciplined with Carney at the Roosters, both learnt and moved on from that incident and become model players at their respective clubs.

What can't Carney? Because he's a brain-dead, f**king genius who will never grow up and does not deserve to be paid so bloody well (15K a week) to play our game.

Chook.

This was the thing that bugged me the most. Its fine for the players to think this, but to say this to journalists is bloody stupid...

It was the reaction of people saying it was ok that makes the NRL look bad.

If no one had said anthing, the NRL would have painted Carney as a 'black sheep'/no the norm for NRL players/"he'll get our support, but there is no place in the game for that behaviour"/ect. It would have been forgotten in a few days and the NRLs image wouldnt have been damaged too badly.

BUT, with this decent of opinion, it makes the NRL look indecisive on whether the behaviour is wrong or ok.

If the players wanted to show support for Carney, they should have gone through official channels at the ARLC, NOT through the media.

 

[madunit]

I always have a chuckle when Ikin takes the moral high ground about player misbehavior...

 

[typicalfan]

The days of just cutting players adrift are gone. You just can't do that. If players have issues on or off the field the NRL has a duty of care imo to support these people as far as they can.

If the unthinkable happened and Carney died or something doing something stupid people will turn to the NRL and say why didn't you support this person. Sport that invests in kids imo need to support them as they become adults. Not all will respond to it but it has to be done.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

The days of just cutting players adrift are gone. You just can't do that. If players have issues on or off the field the NRL has a duty of care imo to support these people as far as they can.

If the unthinkable happened and Carney died or something doing something stupid people will turn to the NRL and say why didn't you support this person. Sport that invests in kids imo need to support them as they become adults. Not all will respond to it but it has to be done.

Cutting him out of first grade is absolutely nessisary, but youtre right that the NRL had a duty of care...

It would be a good idea to keep him in the game in lower grades or in a country team. Not only would it benefit Carney, it would position the game as a place for social redemption and rehabilitation.

And, if he gets his act together in his later year (35+), the ARLC can present him as an NRL Ambassador; showing how great an influence the game is.

and he could be used as a mentor for kids going off the tracks (in the same way a former criminal finds god and goes around as evidence of how great the bible is).

 

[typicalfan]

The reputation of the NRL rests on how these people end up. Turning bad boys into role models would speak of a sport that supports and looks after its players.

 

[Starkers]

Been thinking a lot about this lately. Johns on Sunday said "he only did it to himself" which is his way of looking at it. But what Carney did was to the CODE as a whole. Johns can't and probably won't ever get that, because on top of everything he did off the field, the NRL turn around and make him an Immortal of the game and Hall of Fame player etc.

Maybe it's time we look at linking awards in the game to off field behaviour as well? Dunno, tough one to get the head around.

 

[Chook]

The days of just cutting players adrift are gone. You just can't do that. If players have issues on or off the field the NRL has a duty of care imo to support these people as far as they can.

If the unthinkable happened and Carney died or something doing something stupid people will turn to the NRL and say why didn't you support this person. Sport that invests in kids imo need to support them as they become adults. Not all will respond to it but it has to be done.

Yes the code has a duty of care for it's players, but if they are no longer players, where does that duty of care end?

Does the code still have a duty of care for Anthony Watts? A bad boy who bashed his missus but then the missus recanted and said he didn't. We cut him lose and he joined a bikie gang and has been arrested for drugs etc.

We have to understand we are going to get these types of idiots in the game. Bad blokes that can play the game, skilful but moronic, nice when sober -complete geniuss when drunk. We give them lots of money and free time and fairly little supervision. How does the code handle these guys when, not if, but when they go off the rails?

And in regards to repeat offenders, there is only so much the code should be held responsible for after giving them counselling, treatment etc and then cutting them loose.

Chook.

 

[thorson1987]

Hate him or loathe him, What Paul Kent said on NRL 360 last night was 100% spot on.

The players, coaches and officials sticking up for Carney are dragging the entire code down to his level of stupid.

Yes the code has an obligation to stand by a player who has f**ked up. But the code DOES NOT have an obligation to stand by a player who has f**ked up as many times as Carney. The players need to be aware this type of juvenile, geniused behaviour will no longer be tolerated.

I read this morning both Nate Myles and Frank Paul Nu'uausala, who were the two players disciplined with Carney at the Roosters, both learnt and moved on from that incident and become model players at their respective clubs.

What can't Carney? Because he's a brain-dead, f**king genius who will never grow up and does not deserve to be paid so bloody well (15K a week) to play our game.

Chook.

Agreed, although Ikin did stump him when he asked Kent about the fact the good stuff players do is barely ever mentioned in the media.

All Kent could say was the media fawned over SOO, not realising that Ikin was actually talking about the off the field stuff players do (Charity work, visiting sick kids and shit)

 

[ripthebodyhookthehead]

All the bad boys have one thing in common - Roosters. Now your trying to sign another Ferguson.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

The blokes an imbecile with very little in the way of critical thought.

He rolled off all these great NRL figures in recent years, improvements in tv ratings, reach in places like Perth going up, then he said authoritatively that the Carney incident will undo all of that. Women and families will abandon the sport.

Firstly that's conjecture so it's stupid on that side of things as its impossible to measure what effect this incident will have. But the main reason it's a f**king idiotic argument - and why Kent himself is a moron who spins anything to suit his already established worldview - is that all the inroads he did mention have taken place IN SPITE of a handful of other major controversies.

Despite drugs controversies, match fixing, woman beating, drink driving etc (all of which are worse than what Carney did) the game has grown.

(obviously these incidents to affect how the sport is perceived and hurt the code to some degree - just highlighting how much of a f**kwit Kent is)

I'm flabbergasted that there are people in the thread who will not only forgive such clumsy, outlandish arguments, but that there are actually individuals agreeing with his drivel.

Paul Kent is another scumbag of a journalist who actively shits on the sport and denies the fact that people like him have just as much if not more of a role to play in turning people off the game.

He's far more morally repugnant and disagreeable than half these "troubled" NRL stars.

 

[Ram Man]

Agreed, although Ikin did stump him when he asked Kent about the fact the good stuff players do is barely ever mentioned in the media.

All Kent could say was the media fawned over SOO, not realising that Ikin was actually talking about the off the field stuff players do (Charity work, visiting sick kids and shit)

Noticed he did that as well but the simple fact remains...scandal and controversy sells shitloads more newspapers than footy players handing out gifts at the kids hospital...because that's what sell!
That's how f**ked up this world is!

 

[Chook]

The blokes an imbecile with very little in the way of critical thought.

He rolled off all these great NRL figures in recent years, improvements in tv ratings, reach in places like Perth going up, then he said authoritatively that the Carney incident will undo all of that. Women and families will abandon the sport.

Firstly that's conjecture so it's stupid on that side of things as its impossible to measure what effect this incident will have. But the main reason it's a f**king idiotic argument - and why Kent himself is a moron who spins anything to suit his already established worldview - is that all the inroads he did mention have taken place IN SPITE of a handful of other major controversies.

Despite drugs controversies, match fixing, woman beating, drink driving etc (all of which are worse than what Carney did) the game has grown.

(obviously these incidents to affect how the sport is perceived and hurt the code to some degree - just highlighting how much of a f**kwit Kent is)

I'm flabbergasted that there are people in the thread who will not only forgive such clumsy, outlandish arguments, but that there are actually individuals agreeing with his drivel.

Paul Kent is another scumbag of a journalist who actively shits on the sport and denies the fact that people like him have just as much if not more of a role to play in turning people off the game.

He's far more morally repugnant and disagreeable than half these "troubled" NRL stars.

That's why I said hate him or loathe him...

I don't disagree with you at all and am firmly in the camp that Kent along with Rothfield and Wilson, Paul Suttor, Andrew Webster and Brad Walter at the SMH have massive agendas and take great pleasure in writing bad shit about the code.

But that doesn't detract from the point that what Kent said was spot on. If the players want to continue to get paid handsomely they, and I mean all they, have an obligation to perform AND behave.

The loveable boofhead days are over.

Chook.

 

[Chook]

Agreed, although Ikin did stump him when he asked Kent about the fact the good stuff players do is barely ever mentioned in the media.

All Kent could say was the media fawned over SOO, not realising that Ikin was actually talking about the off the field stuff players do (Charity work, visiting sick kids and shit)

Totally agree. I think it was Monday when I went to the Daily Telucrap website and every headline was about Carney, all six of them telling the same shit from a slightly different perspective.

These Noisecorpse merkins will always have a set against the code now it's unhooked their parasite organisation from it's back.

Sometimes they tell a truth, but not very often.

Chook.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Yes the code has a duty of care for it's players, but if they are no longer players, where does that duty of care end?

Does the code still have a duty of care for Anthony Watts? A bad boy who bashed his missus but then the missus recanted and said he didn't. We cut him lose and he joined a bikie gang and has been arrested for drugs etc.

We have to understand we are going to get these types of idiots in the game. Bad blokes that can play the game, skilful but moronic, nice when sober -complete geniuss when drunk. We give them lots of money and free time and fairly little supervision. How does the code handle these guys when, not if, but when they go off the rails?

And in regards to repeat offenders, there is only so much the code should be held responsible for after giving them counselling, treatment etc and then cutting them loose.

Chook.

I doubt the code has ANY duty of care off the field. The ARLC could wash their hands of these blokes very quickly...

The ARLC does it (or at least should do it) as a good PR story. taking these dickheads and turning them into upstanding members of society.

THAT is how you sell to mothers looking for a sport for their kids. Its not just about playing the sport but getting them involved with these local clubs, and developing them as young men and women.

 

[Chook]

I doubt the code has ANY duty of care off the field. The ARLC could wash their hands of these blokes very quickly...

The ARLC does it (or at least should do it) as a good PR story. taking these dickheads and turning them into upstanding members of society.

THAT is how you sell to mothers looking for a sport for their kids. Its not just about playing the sport but getting them involved with these local clubs, and developing them as young men and women.

Problem is that can be a two edged sword.

Todd Carney was in the Raiders program since he was 16.
Josh Dugan was in the same program since he was 14.

And while neither the club nor the parents wanted these kids to end up as they did, that's what happened.

Having kids in footy programs from such a young age can be a good thing or a bad thing and a lot of that depends on the kids themselves. Like I said previously, we are going to get dickheads in our code no matter what.

It's we do with them after they've been identified as dickheads is the crucial bit imo.

Chook.

 

[God-King Dean]

Kent comes across as bitter & spiteful.

His eyes light up when giving the chance to give to give it to someone.

I remember when Soward suggested a lot of critics have never played before. Kent flew into a rage. Touched a nerve, me thinks.