Jake Friend Arrested For Drink Driving

[Nashy]

Albrahmagate = 3 Broncos + 1 Female + 1 Toilet Cubicle = No Charges

 

[Kimlo]

Albrahmagate = 3 Broncos + 1 Female + 1 Toilet Cubicle = No Charges

+ 1 Mobile Phone Camera [icon_wink

 

[Flutterby]

you make no mention of the rest of the public ,guilty, on the same day,of the same offence and treated totally differently.

The reason that they may be treated differently by their employer is that they are not bringing the company's name bad publicity. I guarantee if it got media attention that put their company in a negative light a lot more of them would get the sack.

We go further and fine them for ( muffled laughter here ) ' bringing the game into disrepute' as if a single person really gives a flying f..k...alright a few might but the vastly overwhelming number do not care. We might express out distaste for DD offences in general but very few of us really think the game of RL suffers.

You may not think the game of RL suffers from these incidents but I know for a fact pretty much every one of my female friends that has a son looking to go into sport is directing them away from RL directly due to incidents such as these, because they do not want their children to grow up in such a culture (true or not - the public perception is that RL has a massive drinking culture). Also there are a number of sponsors who have not renewed sponsorships with particular clubs or the NRL due either in part or full due to incidents such as these; because they do not want their company or product being potentially tarnished by the negative publicity. Therefore these players' behavior is actually impacting more on just the image of the game but also the revenue generated. I can guarantee you that for most people if their deliberate and irresponsible (sometimes illegal) actions caused such a dent to their employer's revenue stream, they would likely be sacked.

The amount paid to a player has absolutely nothing to do with that players responsibility to his club.

I disagree - as with any business the more you are paid the greater your level of responsibility to your employer. I know personally that for every promotion and pay rise I have ever received there has been a higher expectation of responsibility on me.

I am not saying Friend doesn't deserve a second chance, but footballers continue to prove that they are not learning and continue to get themselves into these kinds of situations, therefore the punishments must become increasingly harsher until they do learn.

 

[Coxy]

You're risking RSI in your fingers for nothing Flutterby. They won't listen.

Doesn't matter how many times you tell them that parents look at these incidents and get concerned about their kids playing a sport that has such a culture of drinking and misbehaviour, they'll say it's all bullshit and nobody cares.

You ask any of your female friends if they feel happy that the NRL take a stand against this behaviour and I bet they say "yes, good on them".

 

[Nashy]

Ask any decent fan of the game and they'll say the same.

Also lets look outside the kids thing. I know I'm getting the shits with the game now days. Every week there are headlines about players making fools of themselves, or stepping over the legal line. Not to mention disrepecting females and treating them like they are nothing.

 

[Coxy]

Yep, and those people may eventually stop turning up, stop buying the merchandise etc.

I highlight the kids because that has a longer term effect. If less kids play the game as juniors, less come through, less talent, less people interested....the game withers and dies.

We saw with the disillusioned fans of Super League that they eventually come back or are replaced by others. I'm not that concerned by losing adult fans.

But losing families from the game altogether....scary stuff.

 

[Flutterby]

Exactly, I've lost some of my enthusiasm for the game over the past 12-18 months and I am sick of trying to defend my still following RL to supporters of other sports - it's pretty hard to convince them of the good aspects of the game when all they ever see or hear about is players carrying on like this.

 

[Coxy]

Yeah, the only defence we have is that on the field the game is good to watch - so long as you turn your brain off and forget all the crap they do off the field - including greedy contract negotiations etc etc.

 

[Ari Gold]

you make no mention of the rest of the public ,guilty, on the same day,of the same offence and treated totally differently.

The reason that they may be treated differently by their employer is that they are not bringing the company's name bad publicity. I guarantee if it got media attention that put their company in a negative light a lot more of them would get the sack.

Bad publicity really isn't the key thing to compare here, it's value. An ordinary employee's primary role is to help make the company money, and they don't do that when they get bad press, hence they are fired. A footballer's primary role is to win premierships. This aim isn't affected by bad publicity the same way an ordinary employee's goal would be, hence they stay.

Comparing an ordinary employee isn't really the same because they don't hold the same relative importance to their organization's goal as what NRL players do. If Steve Jobs etc. ever got done for drink driving or whatever, nobody would ever dream of firing him because he's far too valuable to the organization and it's goals. Ditto for a lot of footballers.

 

[Coxy]

I disagree Ari Gold. A football club's primary goal is far more than just win a premiership. Attracting fans, attracting sponsors, attracting high quality players etc are the goals. Yes, ultimately if you do all that well and get quality players etc you are more likely to win a premiership, but most would see that as a bonus.

Clubs with a history of bad behaviour have a spiral issue:
- fans get put off as Flutterby has quite correctly said
- bad publicity can discourage new sponsors and lose existing sponsors
- likewise bad publicity and bad reputation can discourage quality players from coming to you, or can motivate good players to leave (Steve Price anyone?)

Would you sack Karmichael Hunt for getting a blowjob with a couple of his mates in a toilet? No, but in order to limit the damage as above, you:
- publicly censure him with a fine and threats of suspension/contract dismissal for further incidents
- modify club charter/code of conduct to put in place serious consequences if other players transgress
- you reassure sponsors that this sort of stuff won't be tolerated

The Sydney Roosters, and before them Manly, badly erred by saying "look, our guy has done the wrong thing, but that doesn't affect football, he's going to play".

The NRL has had to step in and stop that doing a lot of damage to the club's and elite game's reputation.

Cronulla have shown they are the leaders in dealing with this stuff. Their handling of the Greg Bird saga was excellent - immediately standing him down and then ensuring he would never play for them again (regardless of whether he's convicted of his charges or not, his attempts to get someone to take the rap for him, and his blatant deception of his club simply can't be tolerated) - and Brett Seymour (instant suspension).

 

[Ari Gold]

A football club definitely has more goals than winning a premiership, and certainly they should, especially given how many of the are financially unviable. With all that said though, Manly didn't sack or even stand down Stewart, nor Roosters with friend. And for all the Broncos' actions, they never stood down Thaiday, Boyd and Hunt for the semi-final match. To me that says that the clubs themselves feel their primary goal is a premiership and that secondary goals will not interfere with this primary mission. Or, perhaps more cynically, secondary goals will only be pursued if it's convenient and we don't think it's going to affect our ability to achieve our primary goal. (Example: Raiders sack Bronx Goodwin for being a passenger, but don't sack Carney for being the driver, because Goodwin going isn't going to affect their chances of achieving their goal, whereas Carney will. Ditto for the Tolar incident...which funnily enough, is a player the Raiders signed)

(The exception to this is the Sharks, who despites problems towards the end of last season still had the courage to not bring back Bird.)

 

[Flutterby]

Ari I was really directing my comments at those who said that he shouldn't be stood down or fired because he is a footballer, rather that they should be treated the same as any other person - I was simply pointing that if I and most others did something that portrayed my company so negatively I would most certainly be fired, so by standing them down, they are in fact being treated the same as any other person would. You seem to be advocating that they be treated differently because they are footballers.

I agree with you that many clubs seem to put winning a premiership above all else and sometimes to the detriment of the very sport they are trying to win. What I disagree with is that this should be the attitude of the clubs - as Coxy has quite rightly pointed out, they have a greater duty to the game and it's brand and to ensure it's longevity. Taking little to no action on these incidents simply puts the future of the game itself in jeopardy by forcing a reduction in players taking up the sport, a reduction in the amount of sponsorship dollars channeled into the sport, a reduction in the number of fans who follow the sport etc.

 

[Ari Gold]

I'm not advocating against standing them down because they are footballers, I'm saying that being footballers isn't the reason they are being stood down. Being extremely important to their organization which competes in a unique environment is why they aren't stood down. And whilst I might not be advocating, I certainly have nothing against it. It's the way the world is, and I for one am glad the Broncos adopt what is essentially the same underlying attitude as the rest of the clubs, which is premierships first.

For all the good the Sharks have done in this respect, they don't really have much to show for it, neither on the field or off the field.

 

[Huge]

So....it's all about the knock-on effect is it...drink-driving removes fan and sponsors, bad behavior off-field stops the game from attracting sponsors and stops kids from playing footy because mum does'nt like the grown-up boys carrying on, right ???...what absolute twaddle.....!!!

It might be true were the evidence not so convincing to the contrary !!

Like a lot of people you guys tend to hear only that which suits your belief structure...you ask of your friends leading questions deigned to illicit the response you seek and hence you validate (re-inforce) your errant belief. You want to 'believe' your view and cannot accept that in reality we forget these petty indiscretions in a heartbeat. We move on, most of we fans don't care, we really don't.

If you wish to believe the players off-field antics have a lasting effect, so be it but running around talking to like-minded people will not change a thing. Sure it'll give you comfort but it will not change a thing.

 

[Flutterby]

Pretty sure "Why don't you have your sons play league instead of sooky soccer?" or "Why'd they stop playing footy this year?" aren't a leading questions. But whatever - you can continue to live in your dream world where what people do has absolutely no impact on anyone but themselves. Whereas I will continue to live in the real world where your actions impact on others and work in the world of professional sport where I see those impacts first hand.

 

[Coxy]

[eusa_clap.gi Flutterby.

I hope anyone who even wants to think of condoning drink driving saw the 60 minutes report about drink drivers on the weekend, and how in the US when a drink driver has an accident that results in a fatality that they are charged with murder. So they fucking should be.

It'll never happen in Australia, however I hope they continue to increase the penalties for drink driving convictions to the point that it's a mandatory 2 year sentence even if you're only just over the limit and it's a first offence. There is NO excuse. Ever.

And kudos to the NRL for ensuring there is punishment beyond the woefully inadequate justice system in this country.

 

[Flutterby]

Coxy I agree with you 100%. Though to be fair I don't think anyone on here has condoned drink driving. And whilst yes I have seen the impact on a daily basis of drink driving on other people's lives; I was actually referring to the fact that some on here seem to think that when a player behaves badly it has no wider impact on their sport, however I know first hand how any bad publicity negatively impacts a sport either through a drop in player numbers, a drop in spectator attendance at matches or a drop in the sponsorship dollars being attracted. Now the NRL probably has enough dollars and clout with sponsors at the moment for it not to seem like it's impacting, but trust me - if these incidents continue RL will soon enough find itself with barely any money or supporters.

 

[Coxy]

No, you're quite right. Again.

However, my point was more that if the justice system actually threw the book at these dickheads, well, you can't play in the NRL from jail....and that's where Friend should be.