Rumoured and Confirmed Signings - XXV

[oldmancraigy]

Just to set the record straight, it's been reiterated to me that seffa has been given permission to negotiate a release and NOT junior as it's been suggested on both websites...

I choose to believe my source

You can understand fans of another club hearing that their club has interest in Parramatta's J Paulo and thinking "wow, we're getting junior!" Hopefully Sticky actually THINKS he is getting Junior, and then Seffa turns up, the assistant coaches are all :?

 

[Twizzle]

Sticky probabaly rates Seph

 

[Stagger eel]

Junior would be negotiating for 2017.

Probably, but he wouldn't be Robinson cursoe there...

 

[Stagger eel]

You can understand fans of another club hearing that their club has interest in Parramatta's J Paulo and thinking "wow, we're getting junior!" Hopefully Sticky actually THINKS he is getting Junior, and then Seffa turns up, the assistant coaches are all :?

As I said, seffa is the bloke given permission to look else where not the other one...

I think you'll find that the other bloke has more pending issues to sort out ie an upcoming court case and then the NRL integrity unit not to mention the ramifications from his own club..

 

[Chipmunk]

Even with the slowest backline in the competition we were able to have the highest try scorer in the comp. It doesn't matter about speed as long as they can get it to someone in a better position. And that's what Taka's job is to do, make space for Semi and he did that this year without being 100% fit in any games. Even if Hoppa is here this year I doubt that he'd play centre in attack, the right side centre I think will go to Gutherson who has plenty of speed.

I doubt that Hoppa will win his court case. Guess it all depends on your agenda for which way you think the case will turn out.

And what legal theory do you base this on?

 

[Chipmunk]

Don't forget that in between terrorising merkins on the highways, Junior will be trying to sort out his future beyond 2016. There is bound to be interest from other clubs, including Canberra.

Apparently the Raiders reckon they're one front rower short of being a top side. If I was them I'd go for Mason on a one year deal and sign Tamou for 2017.

 

[Bigfella]

Probably, but he wouldn't be Robinson cursoe there...

I'm picturing a bloke swearing his head off as he realises he's been shipwrecked and can't get off the island.

 

[Rhyno]

Jr. Paulo will be the best prop in the nrl we need to sign him up for life

 

[Stagger eel]

I'm telling you now junior won't be wearing a raiders jersey in the near future...

Seffa however..

 

[parra pete]

Not sure why they waste time and money on judges when they could just ask blokes on rugby league forums which way the case should go.

:lol::lol::lol:

 

[natheel]

I'm telling you now junior won't be wearing a raiders jersey in the near future...

Seffa however..

Good stuff

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

If they haven't followed correct processes, then yes they could be.

Yep. I'm pretty sure that the Board fired him the day after the photos came out. It'll be interesting to see how they argue that they afforded him natural justice (e.g. the right to have his side of the story heard) prior to axing him.

 

[Kornstar]

Yep. I'm pretty sure that the Board fired him the day after the photos came out. It'll be interesting to see how they argue that they afforded him natural justice (e.g. the right to have his side of the story heard) prior to axing him.

What a world we live in. There is a photo with him taking a piss and trying to drink it. There is no denying it's him and he has put the club and the game in a very bad light (again).

While I'm all for due course when it is required surely in this case he is just a f**kwit and the club shouldn't need to give him procedures other than he f**ked up (again) and has put sponsors etc. in jeopardy?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

What a world we live in. There is a photo with him taking a piss and trying to drink it. There is no denying it's him and he has put the club and the game in a very bad light (again).

While I'm all for due course when it is required surely in this case he is just a f**kwit and the club shouldn't need to give him procedures other than he f**ked up (again) and has put sponsors etc. in jeopardy?

Well, for starters, without proper investigation they can't be sure a) when the photo was taken, b) whether the photo has been doctored, c) whether any extenuating circumstances existed (hard to think of many for sure).

All they had to do was give him reasonable notice that they were going to hold a meeting to discuss his future at the club, describe the nature of the concerns and the basis for them, and invite him to attend and/or present his response in writing. Then, if he has no defense, fire him. It's not hard. Could all be done within a week.

 

[Kornstar]

Well, for starters, without proper investigation they can't be sure a) when the photo was taken, b) whether the photo has been doctored, c) whether any extenuating circumstances existed (hard to think of many for sure).

All they had to do was give him reasonable notice that they were going to hold a meeting to discuss his future at the club, describe the nature of the concerns and the basis for them, and invite him to attend and/or present his response in writing. Then, if he has no defense, fire him. It's not hard. Could all be done within a week.

You are obviously right but FMD we let a lot of people get away with a lot of things because of red tape imo.

 

[Gronk]

Yeah but you can still sack someone for being a f**kwit even in their private life when it impacts on your employer. Telstra proved it with that spa sex case.

EDIT: --> here http://www.airc.gov.au/decisionssigned/html/2008aircfb15.htm

 

[Bigfella]

What have you been doing since then Gronk?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Yeah but you can still sack someone for being a f**kwit even in their private life when it impacts on your employer. Telstra proved it with that spa sex case.

EDIT: --> here http://www.airc.gov.au/decisionssigned/html/2008aircfb15.htm

Who is saying you can't? If you were responding to my post, the 'a) when the photo was taken' was referring to the fact that it could possibly have been taken before his employment at the club had started (not that it was while 'off-duty'). It obviously wasn't but if you're going to fire someone, just take reasonable steps to establish the key facts first.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

You are obviously right but FMD we let a lot of people get away with a lot of things because of red tape imo.

Sure. But this isn't about getting away with it. This is about abiding by the contract you agree to (either explicitly or implicitly) when you hire someone. And the general vibe of the thing....both sides of a relationship should have the opportunity to state their case.

How would you feel if you got to work Monday, and the bosses said, 'we've been shown some pictures of you acting inappropriately. We don't want to hear your side of it. You're fired.' ? You should be given the chance to respond 'Yeh, but the hamster was asking for it.' And then get fired.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

You are obviously right but FMD we let a lot of people get away with a lot of things because of red tape imo.

I was a manager many years ago with a major retailer, and it was almost impossible to sack poorly performing staff. The process was so lengthy that most managers just put up shit employees.