MattSantos

Fev v Hull has more chance of an upset so should be the game. Can review 1983 as well...

2 months time i'll be giving up a fairly lucrative career (all relative of course) in banking / corporate treasury to look after the lad. eeek. I fancy consultancy work, prior to me actually understanding what this would entail, is there anything i need to be aware of?

Not a massive fan of the trivial nature of some of the above posts. It's a very serious crime, treat it like one!

121

All fair. On reflection and further reading, i think he's been given the exemption to stop him going to Union... Scrap the rule! Scrap the rule!

Interesting. Didn't know that.

How is it favouritism? Souths were given an indication that they would have had the same treatment. Can you quote other examples of players not being allowed after an exemption was asked for?

Agreed. As mentioned earlier, the rule in the strictest sense is silly. We live in a grey world, especially in sport. Allowing an exemption in this case makes sense.

Semantics. Play / Be in a squad. I agree.

It shows a pattern of putting a player first; i'm confident that they wouldn't be pushing for him to play unless he was ready. These 2 incidents are absolutely related. The rule in it's strictest guise is silly. He's not ok the day before his birthday, but he is ok to play come the big day?

They are linked from a player welfare perspective though. The Roosters clearly have a track record of supporting players with concussion; Boyd Cordner rested for 12 weeks etc. We live in a grey world, it's good to have a rule, but exceptions should be able to be sought after. Clearly, the lad is an exception.

It was in a taxi...

I've just 'resigned' - official resignation to follow. CV to the wife as i'll be a stay at home fat lad.

England Tonga really really was.

121

121.4 this morning. Not too bad considering a weekend of a huge curry with a bucket-load of ale, a massive Sunday dinner and an impossible burger and chips last night.

Still 122. Target of 118 for end of Feb is potentially aggressive..

All the best. If i move back to the UK which is potentially happening, do you need an assistant coach?

But this isnt true. Nice to say mind

Because it's in a terrible state the game in Australia. The clubs have a say as a stakeholder, as do the states. Ultimately, its run by an independent board.

They managed it in Australia.

Our own sport.. on appearances, the ARL are running it ok.

Like any other business. The stakeholders appoint a board and a CEO. The SL clubs would be a stakeholder as would the Championship, Amateur set ups etc.

Isn't this an argument for 1 voice at the top? Or, should i say, 1 impartial to the SL clubs voice and for the betterment of the whole game? I look at the company i work for. It's massive. A proper giant. It has 1 leader and an agreed strategy developed with the relevant stakeholders feeding into that. We all go away and work on it. If you don't want in, go somewhere else. Simple. I don't see a difference to how a sport should be run.

If one governing body and subsequently, 1 CEO were to take over the whole sport, what would be required to make that happen? Presumably x majority of SL clubs as well as the RFL to agree?