Re: Rumours 2 : Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:58 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote:

It's not a binary choice of being squeaky clean or not, there are different degrees of past actions that make someone suitable or unsuitable to wear the primrose and blue.

Everyone draws the line somewhere.

Eg here's mine. Above the line you get a chance.

Drink problems
Gambling problems
Past use of recreational drugs
Makes fake videos of bestiality
Spent convictions for robbery/assault
..................................................
Performance-enhancing drugs
Racist
Dog fighting rings
Domestic violence
Rape
Actual bestiality
Supports the IRA
War criminal
Abuses kids

Do you have a line or if they are good enough are you ok with any of those.

That's a fair call.
I hadn't thought to break it down like that.

Re: Rumours 2 : Tue Oct 22, 2019 6:58 am  

sally cinnamon wrote:

It's not a binary choice of being squeaky clean or not, there are different degrees of past actions that make someone suitable or unsuitable to wear the primrose and blue.

Everyone draws the line somewhere.

Eg here's mine. Above the line you get a chance.

Drink problems
Gambling problems
Past use of recreational drugs
Makes fake videos of bestiality
Spent convictions for robbery/assault
..................................................
Performance-enhancing drugs
Racist
Dog fighting rings
Domestic violence
Rape
Actual bestiality
Supports the IRA
War criminal
Abuses kids

Do you have a line or if they are good enough are you ok with any of those.

I think a lot is based on the public court of opinion, but also exposure.

Take the Israel Falou incident. If someone from Dewsbury tweeted that, would it draw the same reaction? I doubt it, while it’s wrong, their is a limited impact on the sport as a product/brand.

We’ve said for a while how can power is waning, being replaced by corporate sponsorships. Big companies won’t want to associate with controversial figures.

While it’s wrong, if the conviction is spent then it’s fair game to sign him. But he needs to meet the risk appetite for those paying the bills.

Re: Rumours 2 : Tue Oct 22, 2019 8:00 am  

sally cinnamon wrote:

It's not a binary choice of being squeaky clean or not, there are different degrees of past actions that make someone suitable or unsuitable to wear the primrose and blue.

Everyone draws the line somewhere.

Eg here's mine. Above the line you get a chance.

Drink problems
Gambling problems
Past use of recreational drugs
Makes fake videos of bestiality
Spent convictions for robbery/assault
..................................................
Performance-enhancing drugs
Racist
Dog fighting rings
Domestic violence
Rape
Actual bestiality
Supports the IRA
War criminal
Abuses kids

Do you have a line or if they are good enough are you ok with any of those.

You left out having a poop on a hotel table and floor. (Gelling). Drink Driving (Briers/Morley).

Re: Rumours 2 : Tue Oct 22, 2019 8:05 am  

SC I don’t know what to make of your post. Is this a fishing expedition? “War criminal”? What even made you think of that?
As it happens I was gutted that we signed Ryan Bailey.
The club should be a flagship for its community, I do not believe it should be about winning at all costs (despite being as desperate as any one for a GF win).
This is probably worthy of a topic of its own “is there anything you would not condone in pursuit of a Superl League title”.

Re: Rumours 2 : Tue Oct 22, 2019 8:49 am  

Captain Hook wrote:

“War criminal”? What even made you think of that?”.

It was said in response to previous comments on pages 174 and 175 of this thread.

Re: Rumours 2 : Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:38 am  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Widdop will count as NFT but not as quota. Technically he’s no different to Coote or Austin in terms of eligibility, just he was born in Halifax. Problem is it’s discriminatory to change Widdops status based on his birthplace alone...

I understand the technicalities and legalities, I still think it’s ridiculous. I don’t think it will happen but the RFL board have allowed exemptions on quotas in the past, (mainly when teams have gone pop and players become available on the market for no fault of their own).

My view is an exemption should be made here, but that’s just a personal opinion and I don’t expect it to happen.

Re: Rumours 2 : Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:41 am  

With greater success there lies a parallel exposure of dirt...but the penalty is somewhat the same.
It's mainly in the stars interest to be disciplined under the spotlight.

Look at the Duck on here for eg!

Re: Rumours 2 : Tue Oct 22, 2019 10:38 am  

rubber duckie wrote:

With greater success there lies a parallel exposure of dirt...but the penalty is somewhat the same.
It's mainly in the stars interest to be disciplined under the spotlight.

Look at the Duck on here for eg!

Will somebody please translate this for me?

Re: Rumours 2 : Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:10 am  

The Speculator wrote:

It was said in response to previous comments on pages 174 and 175 of this thread.

Hadn’t spotted that.

Re: Rumours 2 : Tue Oct 22, 2019 12:28 pm  

moving on... wrote:

Will somebody please translate this for me?

Ah sorry pal.
I've been speaking thick for years...I've not completely got the hang of it.