Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MattSantos

  1. 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.



    I fancy consultancy work, prior to me actually understanding what this would entail, is there anything i need to be aware of?

  2. 1 minute ago, Damien said:

    To whoever gets an exemption. As the majority of NRL clubs are against this and only one club benefits thus far its hard to dismiss those concerns. It is making a rod for the NRL's back for absolutely no reason. Is an exemption solely based on a little bit of sucking up to V'landys and making a good impression with kids, as the article implies? Doesn't seem like logical, quantitative criteria to me.

    Does Suaalii being 6'5" make him anymore ready than someone that is 6'2" or even 6'0"? Height certainly doesn't equate to maturity, either physical or mental. However it seems to have a huge bearing in this case.

    I have no issue with the rule as it was being set at 18 as I see the logic. I don't particularly have an issue with it being set at 17 if it was felt that this needs to change. Exemptions are just silly especially so when, as in this case, they are based on the judgement call of one person being impressed. I don't think that's the right way to go.

    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!

  3. 5 minutes ago, Damien said:

    I disagree, you either have the rule as it is, change the age limit or you don't have it at all. Exemptions smack of favouritism, especially given the reasons cited in the article.

    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?

    • Like 1
  4. Just now, Davo5 said:

    Yes but a 13 yr NRL veteran experiencing concussion problems at the back end of his career has nothing to do with giving a 17yr old his NRL debut as the poster I was replying to was stating.

    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?

  5. On 24/01/2021 at 02:17, creditwhereitsdews said:

    Not going to:

    St Helens v Dewsbury in 1990, when we came away with a 12-all draw in the Regal Trophy.

    Blackpool v Dewsbury in 1992, the only game I missed all season and lots of club records tumbled. Don't think I'll ever get so close to going to every game in a season again.

    England v Tonga in Auckland at 2017 World Cup, when I was in Brisbane. Everyone I've met who went said it was their greatest ever RL exprience.


    I have incredibly lame excuses for missing all three.

    England Tonga really really was. 🙂

  6. 10 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

    No they didn't, they divided out control to the NRL clubs who run the reserve grades and junior grades and divided up what was left to the ARLC.

    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. 

  7. 2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

    But that isn't massively out of synch with what we have. As soon as some clubs don't like some decisions we end up in politics mode, with leaks, undermining, votes of no confidence and ultimately leaders being dethroned. 

    Are there any really good examples of sports league governance that avoid all of these issues?

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

    • Like 2
  8. 4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

    I support the principle of having a leader who is elected into role to deliver a strategy and is given autonomy to deliver that strategy, but ultimately that strategy would need to fit in with the clubs' visions otherwise they walk en masse and we have another breakaway.

    I actually think the change on governance is probably tweaks, to remove the element of clubs voting on relatively minor decisions that just become a distraction. But I'm not sure whether we ever get to a point where a leader can just sell a stake in the game without approval. 

    I suppose I'm saying I agree with the principle, I'm just not sure how it actually works in the real world.

    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.

  • Create New...