SBW VS Jamie Lyon

[Freak2]

Bartman

I guess my initial intentions of starting this thread was to suggest that the game has been here before with Jamie Lyon. The frustrating component for me is the NRL are now bending over backwards to fight this latest mid contract flea when they have previously had a very similar sitatution and did very little IMO.

If this latest saga is strictly about money than I will agree that although there are similarities the 2 separate incidents are quite different BUT if the SBW saga unfolds to being more than just a pay day well I would suggest the 2 cases are extremely similar and the NRL could have avoided this by playing a lot harder with Jamie???

 

[Ryan]

And Parramatta attained Timana Tahu out of Lyon's loss.
Parra fans think he's so hopeless, yet attain Tahu, but still complain.
Apparently Manly just picked up a dud according to you guys. If this is the case, everyone should move on.

 

[Freak2]

Ryan

Mate you really need to get over the Manly VS Parra debate. It really has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[Ryan]

Ryan

Mate you really need to get over the Manly VS Parra debate. It really has nothing to do with this thread.

Am I missing something here? People are suggesting Lyon left Parra, after already having decided to join Manly???

I'll put this in simple terms for people then.

Your wife has a miscarriage (call her Mrs X).
She needs your attention and support as her partner.
You phone into work (lets say you work at Luna Park).
Your boss tells you that you are required at work that weekend regardless.

What do you do?
What would you think about that boss going forward?
Would you continue to work for that person, ESPECIALLY if there are other alternatives?

 

[bartman]

Am I missing something here? People are suggesting Lyon left Parra, after already having decided to join Manly???

There is conjecture about Lyon's intentions, given the timing of Crusher's release with Parra and his employment at Manly. And the end reult looks very cosy in hindsight.

But yes, I'm with you on the stages... wife's miscarriage, the initial blue with Brian Smith, and the initial time off had nothing to do with Manly. It was probably after that initial request that jamie got some good/bad advice about seeking releases.

At the end of the day, he went through the right channels, and our club gave him the permissions, for better or worse, while retaining control over his appearances for the duration of his contract. People will feel how they feel about it all, but the rest is history.

 

[Ryan]

There is conjecture about Lyon's intentions, given the timing of Crusher's release with Parra and his employment at Manly. And the end reult looks very cosy in hindsight.

But yes, I'm with you on the stages... wife's miscarriage, the initial blue with Brian Smith, and the initial time off had nothing to do with Manly. It was probably after that initial request that jamie got some good/bad advice about seeking releases.

At the end of the day, he went through the right channels, and our club gave him the permissions, for better or worse, while retaining control over his appearances for the duration of his contract. People will feel how they feel about it all, but the rest is history.

Well said mate.

 

[bartman]

Bartman

I guess my initial intentions of starting this thread was to suggest that the game has been here before with Jamie Lyon. The frustrating component for me is the NRL are now bending over backwards to fight this latest mid contract flea when they have previously had a very similar sitatution and did very little IMO.

And fair enough too. It's a good thread, any thread that has discussion with a range of opinions is good. No one opinion has to win out, I only have a problem with people like Barney who for some reason seek to use debating tactics to try and disqualify certain valid opinions while allowing others. And fail...

In terms of the NRL this time, the difference is what Sonny Bill did has big implications for the game as a whole, every club, and in fact other sports, if the notion that club's remain in control of terms of the contracts that players sign is not upheld here.

Sonny walked in the true sense of the term, didn't even organise his French visa first :lol: Lyon asked for the right permissions all the way through. Even if SBW had previously asked for a release, he stopped asking permissions last week when he packed his bags.

If this latest saga is strictly about money than I will agree that although there are similarities the 2 separate incidents are quite different BUT if the SBW saga unfolds to being more than just a pay day well I would suggest the 2 cases are extremely similar and the NRL could have avoided this by playing a lot harder with Jamie???

I think the reason the NRL is so involved this time is entirely because of the differences in the situations, and how the Lyon one only really affected one club - wasn't the first and wouldn't be the last time one disatisfied player went missing or asked for a release.

Frustrating I know, but we have to accept at some stage our club (Brian Smith?) decided it didn't want Lyon back anyway while he was under contract. Bulldogs don't want Sonny back either, they just want to be in control of his movements during his contracted time, if he's not going to play for them. Or be compensated for it.

The NRL on the other hand (and all sports in Australia that operate a salary cap system) must be involved to legally challenge Sonny's actions, so that contracts retain some sense of loyalty (wrong word!) or binding consent between the two parties involved. Jamie respected that binding consent, Sonny hasn't.

And now Sonny wants to take the whoel salary cap system down - which jamie didn't seek to do at any point in the four years, let alone in the first week he wasn't turning out for his club.

 

[Bradley Wardle]

And fair enough too. It's a good thread, any thread that has discussion with a range of opinions is good. No one opinion has to win out, I only have a problem with people like Barney who for some reason seek to use debating tactics to try and disqualify certain valid opinions while allowing others. And fail...

In terms of the NRL this time, the difference is what Sonny Bill did has big implications for the game as a whole, every club, and in fact other sports, if the notion that club's remain in control of terms of the contracts that players sign is not upheld here.

Sonny walked in the true sense of the term, didn't even organise his French visa first :lol: Lyon asked for the right permissions all the way through. Even if SBW had previously asked for a release, he stopped asking permissions last week when he packed his bags.


I think the reason the NRL is so involved this time is entirely because of the differences in the situations, and how the Lyon one only really affected one club - wasn't the first and wouldn't be the last time one disatisfied player went missing or asked for a release.

Frustrating I know, but we have to accept at some stage our club (Brian Smith?) decided it didn't want Lyon back anyway while he was under contract. Bulldogs don't want Sonny back either, they just want to be in control of his movements during his contracted time, if he's not going to play for them. Or be compensated for it.

The NRL on the other hand (and all sports in Australia that operate a salary cap system) must be involved to legally challenge Sonny's actions, so that contracts retain some sense of loyalty (wrong word!) or binding consent between the two parties involved. Jamie respected that binding consent, Sonny hasn't.

And now Sonny wants to take the whoel salary cap system down - which jamie didn't seek to do at any point in the four years, let alone in the first week he wasn't turning out for his club.

You appear to have a problem with deciding when you have an opinion and accept others and when you have an opinion and don't accept others. That is the only debate and it is one you are having with yourself. If you are pointing out that someone can have opinion and then marking them on the opinion with a "fail" who can have an opinion other than you, since quite clearly you are not concerned about providing an opinion not only in regards to what you think however also that someone else's opinion can either pass or fail.

I think that it has big implications for the game as a whole due to decisons being made with pressure from the media and pressure from the club, imo.

It may seem plausible that he left in hurry for a specific reason, one which at this point in time may or may not be known. If in fact it is a requirement to get a visa in Australia before leaving, why would he have left without it, if it isn't surely he can pick it up on the way? It might be best to leave that with immagration Homer.

Does "only really affected" mean certainty. It sounds a lot like a maybe, imo. I'm actually not frustrated at all so unfortunately you don't know however I have and did/do accept that Parramatta after apparently not allowing him time off to be with his partner in a undeniable time of need were then fair and amicable with how the situation played out.

Loyalty is not a word either apparently. I disagree with that however will refrain from marking you.

I haven't heard the interview with Sonny advising that he is taking measures to take the whole salary cap system down so I don't have an opinion on that however I do agree that Jamie showed no intention to do this.

 

[Manly Eagle]

*edit*

Is everyone forgetting that he was Man of Steel the year before?

 

[Twizzle]

geez, some people are either ill informed or have short memories, or both

 

[Bradley Wardle]

geez, some people are either ill informed or have short memories, or both

First the irony was Lyon and SBW playing in the same game that Lyon walked out of Parramatta after and now the irony is Moderator passes the ball to Super Moderator. If I had an opinion I would be stating this is not a coincidence.