shanno has a plan for NZ

[RoosTah]

:roll: Ridiculous post.

Yeah, major companies generally don't worry about potential lawsuits that could cost them millions :roll:

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Are people on here seriously trying to link suicide with players signing to NRL clubs at 16 instead of 18?

This has to be a sick joke.

 

[RoosTah]

Are people on here seriously trying to link suicide with players signing to NRL clubs at 16 instead of 18?

This has to be a sick joke.

I take it you've never met a lawyer.

 

[taipan]

Are people on here seriously trying to link suicide with players signing to NRL clubs at 16 instead of 18?

This has to be a sick joke.

It's all about welfare .The guys were not playing tennis .The NRL and clubs have to consider welfare first and I dare say they all do.
You don't apparently by your comments .A mind is like a parachute .It doesn't work if it is not open.
The bleeding ASADA dramas should be enough to alert anyone about player welfare issues.

But, bu,t but expansion forget everything else.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

What a load of utter bullshit.

These cockheads will come up with any lies to back their mates at nrlhq.

Any suggestion that players being told they have no pathways in pro RL until they turn 18 is good for their welfare is spurious nonsense. To try and suggest players are committing suicide because they are signing for NRL clubs at 16 instead of 18 is ridiculous and frankly adverse to the welfare of players who have actual issues. The best place for some kids would be part of a professional setup where they have staff looking out for them and programs to help them. This plan says f**k off and come back when you're 18 or play another sport. Yeah this is brilliant for the welfare of young men. f**k me dead this admin is a joke and their sychofantic fanbois are even worse.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I take it you've never met a lawyer.

I'm sure a big Vichy apologist like you certainly has.

You'd be loving this plan. Its the biggest boost vichyball could hope for.

 

[Last Week]

What a load of utter bullshit.

These cockheads will come up with any lies to back their mates at nrlhq.

Any suggestion that players being told they have no pathways in pro RL until they turn 18 is good for their welfare is spurious nonsense. To try and suggest players are committing suicide because they are signing for NRL clubs at 16 instead of 18 is ridiculous and frankly adverse to the welfare of players who have actual issues. The best place for some kids would be part of a professional setup where they have staff looking out for them and programs to help them. This plan says f**k off and come back when you're 18 or play another sport. Yeah this is brilliant for the welfare of young men. f**k me dead this admin is a joke and their sychofantic fanbois are even worse.

Indulge us with your wisdom. Why do you think that they've come to this conclusion on the age restriction? I know your first response is going to be "incompetence, useless, hopeless" blah blah blah, some more repetitive shit you've been spewing for years, so just skip to a more thought out, open opinion. If you're capable.

If not, by all means, just carry on whinging like you have had period pain for the last 5 years.

 

[RoosTah]

I'm sure a big Vichy apologist like you certainly has.

You'd be loving this plan. Its the biggest boost vichyball could hope for.

Are you f**king geniused or something? Did your mother intentionally drop you on your fat f**ked up head repeatedly as a kid in the hope she wouldn't have to raise such an obviously mentally deficient creature?? What are you even talking about?

 

[strong_latte]

Are you f**king geniused or something? Did your mother intentionally drop you on your fat f**ked up head repeatedly as a kid in the hope she wouldn't have to raise such an obviously mentally deficient creature?? What are you even talking about?

Don't waste your time mate. He's from the country and probably never made it past primary school, and people out that way have no clue how things work in the business world.

Just piss off back to your farm East Coast and leave the complex and potential legal mine field of player welfare to the people who understand more about the business world and just go back to ploughing your field of turnips.

 

[adamkungl]

:lol: You f**king clowns are trying to suggest the NRL is going to get sued over a young man committing suicide - a complex and widely prevalent social issue. And that this can be avoided by not signing players for a couple of years later.

Maybe young blokes shouldn't be allowed to get jobs or girlfriends, the pressures of coping might be too much and someone might get sued.

f**king hell, of all the dumb shit i've read on here, and there is a hell of a lot of it, this tops it.

 

[RoosTah]

:lol: You f**king clowns are trying to suggest the NRL is going to get sued over a young man committing suicide - a complex and widely prevalent social issue. And that this can be avoided by not signing players for a couple of years later.

Maybe young blokes shouldn't be allowed to get jobs or girlfriends, the pressures of coping might be too much and someone might get sued.

f**king hell, of all the dumb shit i've read on here, and there is a hell of a lot of it, this tops it.

You're kidding yourself if you don't think the higher injury rates and mental issues being experienced by some of these younger players hasn't got some class action lawyer licking his lips. Do people seriously not get what f**king vultures lawyers are?

What f**king planet are you clowns living on? I hate to break it to you, but the legal world isn't just sitting back and holding hands with everyone singing koombaya - they're looking for every conceivable opportunity to make a buck and it shows; Australian is now almost as litigious as the U.S.

 

[adamkungl]

Maybe we shouldn't allow players to play pro sport until they're 30 :lol:

 

[RoosTah]

Maybe we shouldn't allow players to play pro sport until they're 30 :lol:

Koombaya sweet heart, koombaya.

 

[adamkungl]

NRL should be an amateur oztag comp, contact sports for money are just too risky and too much pressure.

 

[strong_latte]

Maybe we shouldn't allow players to play pro sport until they're 30 :lol:

Are you trying to be funny or do you not get what this is all being driven by? Because speaking of f**king clowns, it never ceases to amaze me how many people here carry on as though they think the game can still be run like it was in the 60s.

 

[Last Week]

Anyway, my personal opinion is that the age restriction is being brought in for a few reasons. The primary one is it will strengthen a draft.

In regards to player welfare, to suggest it's a ridiculous notion is ignorant. Yes mental illness is a society problem but the NRL cannot be seen to be doing nothing. Kids are actively moving away from home for the game, away from their support networks. 5 recent suicides now. They can't do nothing.

As for legal ramifications, it's a pre-emptive strike against a potential law suit. Similar to the concussion issues.

I think it's an overreaction, just like the concussion/shoulder charge stance. But I'm also not the one who will be held responsible should a lawsuit set it's sights on the game.

I'm also not naive enough to think that the main motivation behind this is player welfare. It's just a selling point.

 

[strong_latte]

My god, there's a bloke here who seems to have a grasp of basic legal concepts like duty of care and the importance of PR in a publically engaged business.

 

[adamkungl]

I'd argue that banning the shoulder charge opened them up to a lawsuit. It was basically admitting that it was unsafe. And lo and behold, now someone is trying to sue them. And will most likely fail, or get f**k all compensation, certainly not enough to damage the game.

There is nothing to suggest the NRL or anyone else failed their duty of care. Clubs put a huge amount of care and support into their young players. Signing them 2 years later does nothing to help their welfare, in fact it might be worse because they are less prepared for a professional sport environment. Of course it won't matter to us, because they'll be playing a different sport anyway.

Baseless fears of lawyers is a ridiculous way to run a business. Wealthy businesses such as the NRL have enough legal advice to protect themselves without farcical measures such as crippling their own product.

I don't believe for a second that this is a legal issue except in minds of some special people on LU. It is partially a player welfare issue, but a completely misguided solution. It is partially a cost cutting measure, too. But mostly it is another step towards removing clubs from juniors and implementing a draft.

but but butbutbut the vultures!

 

[Last Week]

I'd argue that banning the shoulder charge opened them up to a lawsuit. It was basically admitting that it was unsafe. And lo and behold, now someone is trying to sue them. And will most likely fail, or get f**k all compensation, certainly not enough to damage the game.

There is nothing to suggest the NRL or anyone else failed their duty of care. Clubs put a huge amount of care and support into their young players. Signing them 2 years later does nothing to help their welfare, in fact it might be worse because they are less prepared for a professional sport environment. Of course it won't matter to us, because they'll be playing a different sport anyway.

Baseless fears of lawyers is a ridiculous way to run a business. Wealthy businesses such as the NRL have enough legal advice to protect themselves without farcical measures such as crippling their own product.

I don't believe for a second that this is a legal issue except in minds of some special people on LU. It is partially a player welfare issue, but a completely misguided solution. It is partially a cost cutting measure, too. But mostly it is another step towards removing clubs from juniors and implementing a draft.

but but butbutbut the vultures!

You've basically said the same thing I have but from a more sceptical point of view.

It's easy for any of us to say that banning the shoulder charge was an over reaction, but again, we're not the ones who might have to sit in a court room and answer questions at an inquiry.

All beside the point as player welfare is not the main motivation for all of this.

 

[kiwileaguefan]

Wow, you picked the wrong two players to try and back up your point. Hurrell and Kata weren't big losses to Auckland rugby ... Hurrell wasn't even that highly rated only when competing against high school players.

RTS might have been a better bet to try make your point - but Auckland's issues aren't that relevant when looking across the region - 3 NPC teams - and the fact that Auckland rugby often loses players to other regions in NZ.

The talented rugby players come through if they want to play rugby - in only a few cases has a player gone to an U20s team over rugby (like McGahan who went for two years for the money and then returned to rugby - which I still find odd considering who his old man its).

I never said they were big loses to Auckland Rugby...i just stated Auckland Rugby couldn't offer what U20's does hence why players like Hurrell and Kata swapped. Providing Rugby League with two International (Tonga reps) players.

This competition isn?t just for attention ? it?s also for young athletic talent, which is pulled into a code?s orbit. Even the Junior Warriors exert a pull ? playing on Sky, travelling every other week ? which club rugby can?t hope to match.

http://www.metromag.co.nz/metro-archive/the-fall-of-auckland-rugby/

And a good article on Konrad moving from Rugby to League:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10783681

RTS is a different case because he was 18 when signed from playing in a League tournament... Omar Slaimankhel is a good example...