I hate the media!

[Fozz]

Maybe that was why he turned gay...I mean celibrate.

 

[Professor47]

Was it just the first grade team?

 

[Coxy]

I said I wouldn't post again but this is new informaion. And yes, if his other girl's story is true it changes a lot of things. Really it'd make this Clare girl seem totally psycho - to go to the cops and either fake or successfully convince herself and trained professionals she's traumatised in order to cover for breaking the rules of her employer, and do so for 7 years...crikey, that's extreme.

So I find that doubtful.

But certainly the story Clare's told doesn't add up.

It changes nothing of my opinion of Matt Johns nor channel 9's decision to stand him down. He has conducted himself in a manner that is, to the vast majority of people, disgusting and unacceptable. I already couldn't stand him, but I would literally find it impossible to stomach watching him on TV. Channel 9 still have no option other than to keep him off the air.

 

[Dexter]

The jokes don't take long.

A recent study shows that the Cronulla sharks are getting bigger crowds at their gang bangs than at their home games.

The NRL have cleared Matty Johns of any misconduct because the the Kiwi girl at the centre of the sex scandle has admitted shewas unaware of the interchange rule

I finally understand the words to the Haka, for years I've been wondering what cum matty cum matty meant.

 

[schmix]

Well this certainly throws a new light on things. I was totally over this argument but now I feel I have to post so it doesn't look like I bowed out when the going got tough [icon_lol1.

What this woman says absolutely goes against the original story from the girl, and seems to confirm Johns' report. BUT it's still just one person, who could be lying for any number of reason (15 minutes of fame, money - because the commercial channels would certainly pay, a grudge against the girl etc).

I'm not saying I don't believe her, but I think some people have been a bit too quick to give her statements 100% credibility. The story has certainly modified my views and I'm willing to admit that, but I wonder if those who were arguing against me would admit the same if the situation was reversed.

I still completely stand by my shock at people's initial reactions - "she asked for it", "she's a slut who walked straight into the situation" etc. I really really hate that people jump to those sorts of conclusions, because it just reeks of a male-dominated culture where women have to go to extraordinary lengths to protect themselves, and get justice for being wronged.

I also stand by the idea that not saying "no" does not always equal consent, and that women can be intimidated into saying nothing when they are feeling frightened or endangered. Whether that is the case here, at the moment I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I do think there was a situation that should not have occurred. Two men should not turn into twelve at the drop of a hat, regardless of the girl.

 

[Professor47]

Oh - I definitely agree to the sacking of channel 9 duties, I mean, we are talking sponsors, tv ratings and numerous factors here - that is a business decision more than a moral decision anyway. Regardless, the bottom line is there was no way he could work for channel 9 doing the current work, maybe down the track some minor things but that is way, way down the track.
I just don't think he deserves the public humiliation that he is receiving right now, but I guess we live in a crazy, crazy world now.

 

[Coxy]

Honestly, being stood down by channel 9 was best for Johns too...gets him out of the spotlight and hopefully that public humiliation his family is suffering can die down sooner than later.

Couldn't care less about his personal humiliation.

 

[lynx000]

As I said earlier, the truth probably lies somewhere between the two versions.

 

[OXY-351]

It changes nothing of my opinion of Matt Johns nor channel 9's decision to stand him down. He has conducted himself in a manner that is, to the vast majority of people, disgusting and unacceptable.

So is everyone here saying that sacking Johns was/is the best thing to do, happy that Hunt and Thaiday are still playing for brisbane?

Or are people still going to continue to argue how this the sharks case is still so very different to the broncos case? Cause it seems remarkable similar to me given the new information that has come to light.

 

[Coxy]

I said at the time that if the Broncos decided to sack them I would understand.
I felt uneasy that they played in that semi, and didn't get tickets to go to the game for that reason.

I've also said I don't think Johns being sacked from his assistant coaching role at Melbourne was fair or justified. It wasn't a public role.

His channel 9 position is all about public relations, public opinion. As lockyer47 said, it's a business decision, he had to be stood down.

Hunt and Thaiday, as pin up boys for the Broncos, also had a responsibility and duty of care to protect the club's image. Hence I wouldn't have had qualms if they were sacked...and frankly think the punishment they got was weak.

 

[OXY-351]

His channel 9 position is all about public relations, public opinion. As lockyer47 said, it's a business decision, he had to be stood down.

Hunt and Thaiday, as pin up boys for the Broncos, also had a responsibility and duty of care to protect the club's image. Hence I wouldn't have had qualms if they were sacked...and frankly think the punishment they got was weak.

Good to see that someone advocating Johns sacking finally admits that the Broncos trio probably should have been sacked too.

Some people are saying Channel 9 is a business and they need to protect thier business interests and image, as well as that of the game, but as you quite rightly point out below, the Broncos are a business too and if anything, need to protect the image of the game even more.

The fact is, we live in a very conservative society. And that society is what pays the NRL players' and officials' wages. Bad behaviour might stop a percentage of people buying merchandise, attending games, or supporting sponsor products.

Sponsors don't want this, so they don't want their brand associated with wall pissing car kicking toilet ****.

That in turn leaves clubs vulnerable to losing income.
That in turn leads to players not being able to be paid what they want, so they go anyway.

It just seems that a lot of people on this forum have rose coloured glasses when it comes to anythign related to the Broncos.

 

[Playboy Bunny]

Wow...Fool Gould is actually speaking some sense for once...

 

[schmix]

It changes nothing of my opinion of Matt Johns nor channel 9's decision to stand him down. He has conducted himself in a manner that is, to the vast majority of people, disgusting and unacceptable.

So is everyone here saying that sacking Johns was/is the best thing to do, happy that Hunt and Thaiday are still playing for brisbane?

Or are people still going to continue to argue how this the sharks case is still so very different to the broncos case? Cause it seems remarkable similar to me given the new information that has come to light.

Jesus you keep harping on this. I said that I think the Broncos trio should have been punished to a greater extent. Whether that includes sacking, I don't know. Would I have been calling for Johns' sacking if it hadn't already happened? I don't know. I am generally a fence-sitter regarding punishment, at most I can say I think someone deserved more or less.

The point is that I can see why each organisation made their individual decisions. Consistency is irrelevant because they are completely different organisations. It's not even club vs NRL. It's club vs media company.

 

[Professor47]

Hunt and Thaiday, as pin up boys for the Broncos, also had a responsibility and duty of care to protect the club's image. Hence I wouldn't have had qualms if they were sacked...and frankly think the punishment they got was weak.

[eusa_clap.gi [eusa_clap.gi [eusa_clap.gi

Selfishly I admit, the team NEEDED them to play to win, and I think a lot of fans had a bit of an uneasy feeling about that one. In hindsight, the punishment was definitely weak.

I still disagree about the personal humiliation Coxy, though there ARE a lot of angry fans out there right now so fair enough, but what Vossy just said, Matty Johns is getting blasted for the last 5-10 years of negative cases off the field, its a fair call. I must say I can't help but feel for him, but he did say himself, he accepts responsibility for the predicament he finds himself in, I just wish he had some more privacy, but I'm guessing that will come in the coming weeks.

 

[ningnangnong]

Bruno's on the The Footy Show at the moment.

 

[gUt]

As I said earlier, the truth probably lies somewhere between the two versions.

This is right but even if the girl begged the whole team to come back and have their way with her, and spent the whole time telling them how much fun she was having, even if she's a 100% lying moneygrabber, John's position as the face of the game is still untenable. Sad for him and his family but he has (had) to go .

 

[Jeanette]

Every rugby league player is a sales person and their job is to make money for their club and the NRL.

Their job is not to just play well, they need to sell themselves to the public to bring in ticket and merch sales, they need to sell themselves to businesses to bring in sponsorship revenue and also to commercial television audiences. They need to go to schools to convince mums and dads to let their kids play rugby league.

The AFL are rubbing their hands in glee at all of this continued nonsense....

 

[Coxy]

Can someone fill me in on what Gould and Bruno said on the footy show? I still can't bring myself to watch it! LOL