Some Interesting Titbit New On The Eels & Souths

[Sangreal 86]

just on the Fitzy thing..

the guy had a massive rant and did shout at the mic and it was rather annoying to hear it but as a member (life member also) he had every right to express an opinion and shouldn't be publicaly ridiculed in a gossip column because of it, Also I disagree with Pricey's opinion on the reason why Hilly didn't deserve life membership, he should realise that there were many non players who deserved their life membership over the last 40 to 50 years for their contribution to the club, people like Norm Syvia, Jack Argent, Spencer O'Neill, Tony Zappia, Joe Grima and Craig Catterick all deserved it.

Hilly's no different, whether you agree or not he still gave this club great service as an administrator and was thrusted into roles he should never of been, but I guess that's beside the point..he should of got it and I thought on this occasion the board handled it badly.

The board handled this absolutely right Muz.

 

[JoeyJoJo83]

Can you please show me the substance that is this sh*t. I have shared what I feel, what I perceive. It's just an opinion, a point of view. I am not the coach, DA is, so I support whatever DA decides including whatever outcomes are derived from discussions with the players.

The substance that I claim is sh*t is your belief that Robson is the greatest halfback that the game of rugby league has ever had. To come and say that a player who has played a dozen NRL games in his career should be captain is ludicrous. Robson is going to have a battle on his hands to retain his spot in the number 7 jersey let alone be captain, represent NSW in the number 7 jersey be the face of rugby league and the new leader of the Liberal Party. Pull your head in son.

 

[parra pete]

I can't follow this Hill business is all about? Who decides whether he gets life membership..the members or the Board..I thought it was a membership decision. It is in the bush anyway, and I would assume the constitution of the PDRLFC would operate under similar lines...
Can anyone enlighten me please.
Terry, you obviously have the ear of the Board. On what grounds did they veto Andrew Hills' LM. Was it because they thought to grant him, would devalue the honor granted in the past.

 

[parra pete]

BTW, in my opinion, Andrew Hill would be well short of what is needed to be a Life Member. Wasn't he a paid employee?

 

[fish eel]

BTW, in my opinion, Andrew Hill would be well short of what is needed to be a Life Member. Wasn't he a paid employee?

Yes, and I dont think, paid employees should be given life membership unless they've been there for eons or also have an outstanding record as a player for the club.

 

[Bigfella]

TBH the whole thing smacks of cronyism and nepotism rife in rugby league.

One bloke who has had his snout in the trough for many years on a very good wicket, now lobbying for awards and recognition on behalf of one of his mates through arcane systems of reward and acknowledgement.

This is the type of set up that is proving so hard to unravel as they try to clear the way for the independent commission.

 

[Stagger eel]

The board handled this absolutely right Muz.

the problem Sevens is that on the surface it wasn't handled well, but I know that there's some information that cannot be disclosed that puts a very strong arguement why he shouldn't get it, I just wished that someone from the board could of put that arguement forward at the AGM.

I can't follow this Hill business is all about? Who decides whether he gets life membership..the members or the Board..I thought it was a membership decision. It is in the bush anyway, and I would assume the constitution of the PDRLFC would operate under similar lines...
Can anyone enlighten me please.
Terry, you obviously have the ear of the Board. On what grounds did they veto Andrew Hills' LM. Was it because they thought to grant him, would devalue the honor granted in the past.

tbh, I wouldn't think anyone would be in a position to put the real reasons forward unless it came from an official statement from the club.

BTW, in my opinion, Andrew Hill would be well short of what is needed to be a Life Member. Wasn't he a paid employee?

i could be wrong but I believe it's 10 years service for a player and 20 years for a non player.

 

[Sangreal 86]

I can't follow this Hill business is all about? Who decides whether he gets life membership..the members or the Board..I thought it was a membership decision. It is in the bush anyway, and I would assume the constitution of the PDRLFC would operate under similar lines...
Can anyone enlighten me please.
Terry, you obviously have the ear of the Board. On what grounds did they veto Andrew Hills' LM. Was it because they thought to grant him, would devalue the honor granted in the past.

Pete I believe it has always been the boards directive on who is given the honour of Life membership. Members can nominate I believe, and if that nominee comes outside the guidelines of normal qualification it can be put to the members to vote at an AGM. If there are others on this forum who have a better knowledge on this part of the constitution, they may be good enough to come on and give a better account than I.

On Andrews situation, I have no official capacity to speak for either board on any matter.

My personal opinion is that a few things were handled badly, and it was not in anyway by the boards.

 

[Delboy]

Lets put this into a business perspective, if in my working life as a Banker you change employment and go to a competitor ( read GWS AFL) then you leave that day and they wash their hands of you.

Whilst this issue could have been handled better, and I have no indication that this is the case, overall I have no problem with this outcome for a paid employee. From info received , Hill spent most of his time as a paid employee, left the group and went to work for an aggressive competitor, taking well sourced details relating to players, payments etc with him.

See you

 

[strider]

so if we are saying you shouldn't get life membership for being a paid employee, then who's up for it? .... surely not players, coaches, etc - they are all paid

 

[Delboy]

Strides, I was making the point as a paid employee there are certain standards that come into play. I believe the right ones were upheld.

 

[Hallatia]

I would like to see Fui come off the bench. With his improved fitness a fresh Fui would rip defenses to shreds.

I feel the same, I think Fui is explosive off the bench, I am not sure if there is an issue about being named on the run on side or not. In my opinion, it really does not matter what number you wear on your back, none of it would be a demotion

 

[TheParraboy]

Id play Fui as hooker, cayless and poore as props in the opening 20 mins (cayless can play a 40min half)

Robson, Mortimer or Burt can play dummy half in this period to compesate MK being on the bench

Bash the daylights out of the opposition, then let our backs go rampant in the back 60 of the game

Cheers

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

I see no reason why Fui needs to be benched, he has as much impact in his 1st and 2nd stints on the field. DA uses him quite well.

 

[JoeyJoJo83]

id play fui as hooker

wtf?

 

[parra pete]

Id play Fui as hooker, cayless and poore as props in the opening 20 mins (cayless can play a 40min half)

Robson, Mortimer or Burt can play dummy half in this period to compesate MK being on the bench

Bash the daylights out of the opposition, then let our backs go rampant in the back 60 of the game

Cheers

"Whilst I might not agree with what you say, I'll defend to the death your right to say it"...awww maybe not to the death!!!. After all it is only a football forum.
Those tactic sound like the St George tactics of the 60s, unlimited tackle..
Bash em....
You make sense to me TPB. I see where you're coming from....

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Yeah, except hookers rarely take hit ups. If you want a bash and barge type approach, why not just put Fui at lock.

Might have a problem when the 3 props are buggered and the opposition bring on their sub forward (ones who wont be bashed up).

Would also be a problem if we get absolutly no ball for the 3 forwards to use, whom would then be buggered from defending.

 

[parra pete]

Id play Fui as hooker, cayless and poore as props in the opening 20 mins (cayless can play a 40min half)

Robson, Mortimer or Burt can play dummy half in this period to compesate MK being on the bench

Bash the daylights out of the opposition, then let our backs go rampant in the back 60 of the game

Cheers

What's the punch line to that old joke.

" Nah, it's the one with the wedding ring on the finger, but I see where your coming from, and I like your way of thinking"

 

[Casper The Ghost]

The substance that I claim is sh*t is your belief that Robson is the greatest halfback that the game of rugby league has ever had. To come and say that a player who has played a dozen NRL games in his career should be captain is ludicrous. Robson is going to have a battle on his hands to retain his spot in the number 7 jersey let alone be captain, represent NSW in the number 7 jersey be the face of rugby league and the new leader of the Liberal Party. Pull your head in son.

You have garnished what I have claimed/stated. I never said that Robson is/was the greatest halfback that the game of RL has ever had, instead I said that he will be one of the top 10 NRL players in 2010. I never said that he will be the face of RL, instead I said he could break into the NSW Squad over the next 2 years. Never said he would be the new leader of the Liberal party.

I feel that Robson has a lot more to offer and this will become apparent as the 2010 season unfolds. He can only get better and better until age gets the better of him.

Based on the crap you have come up with to back your claims (the substance) of sh*t, it seems all you have dredged up thus far is crap called Slander.....

Maybe you should tighten up the lips around your arse unless there is one too many hemorrhoid getting in the way of a crappy closure. :lol::lol::lol:

All said tongue in cheek.

Respect to the old warhorse that you are Joey Jo Jo 83

 

[Casper The Ghost]

TBH the whole thing smacks of cronyism and nepotism rife in rugby league.

One bloke who has had his snout in the trough for many years on a very good wicket, now lobbying for awards and recognition on behalf of one of his mates through arcane systems of reward and acknowledgement.

This is the type of set up that is proving so hard to unravel as they try to clear the way for the independent commission.

Sounds more like Freemasonry gobbledygook to me.... Unless the fans (the people) take back complete control of the game, the responsibility for running the game will continue to be passed on to 3rd party strangers who have private vested commercial interests not in keeping with the best interests of the fans.