Jono Lance is with the Reds, not the Rebs, I think?
Printable View
Jono Lance is with the Reds, not the Rebs, I think?
Be interesting to see if any of the planned friendly fixtures against super teams, if the strongest teams are sent to play us or reserve squads.
This analogy is getting deep!
All I mean is that bitterness does us no favours. It doesn't change the past. When we make decisions the question we should ask ourselves is: Is this good for the Force? Nothing else really matters. Is playing a game to prepare our squad for the NRC and IPRC? Yes. Perhaps if it were a choice between the Rebels and someone else it would be a different matter. Personally, it might not be a bad idea to maintain links with pur former brethren now at the Rebels. Might make it easier to rip them back over here.
If there had been a proper, open and accountable process, if the ARU hadn't colluded with the VRU and MRRU, if there hadn't been dubious conduct by officers and representatives (including lying to a Senate inquiry), if the Rebels hadn't cleaned out their list in anticipation of an influx of players, even if RA came out now and said "we goofed, we shouldn't have done it, apologies" I might be willing to move on.
Until then (to continue the analogy) you are encouraging an abused spouse to go back for more for the sake of the kids.
And that is exactly my point. Regardless of how we may or may not feel, is it good for the Force? As TiF noted on the other thread, "The Force" is now specifically the IPRC team. So when one of the major sticking points in RA approving the IPRC is it lasting more that a couple of years, and RA has suddenly rediscovered the possible attraction of expansion, and are publicly stating that they've given an undertaking to "The Force" that they will be given the chance to bid to rejoin SR, giving the clear implication that such an undertaking was both asked for and welcomed, that is the moment when "The Force" starts cosying up to the other Australian SR teams and organising friendlies against them? What is the visual on that for someone outside Australian rugby - does it give the impression of a deep committment to the IPRC as an enduring competition? It certainly makes me wonder, and I'm not even someone being asked to put faith in the competition or money on the line. They seem pretty obvious questions, that have been raised before now with less obvious cause...are they in the best interests of the Force?
Yes; the new partner was definitely not the abusive ex-partner's partner at the time the new partner got the gig. The abusive ex was still honestly evaluating which party was to become the long term partner at that time. It all depended on whether the ex could wiggle out of a solemn vow made to the party who was the current partner - at that time. BUT; the new partner is definitely the long-term partner now. Subject to change at any time of course. No bullshit.
I would say that I am encouraging an abused spouse to attend a single mediation session in order to support a cleaner break in future and increase the chance of maximum custody of the kids.
AndyS makes a good point about some interesting changes in language. Given a choice, I'd prefer IPRC than readmission into Super Rugby. Given a choice, I'd prefer readmission into Super Rugby over nothing. Given the costs associated with setting up a new competition, I sincerely doubt the IPRC will be set up as a stop-gap measure.
With a mediator who was part of the abuse.
Let me be blunt - I would be happy to support a Force game against the Rebels if organised by The Force. I absolutely refuse to endorse (in any way) the legitimacy of the events of last year. And, in my opinion, accepting an invite for corporate hospitality from the Rebels at a Super Rugby game does just that.
.....and the kids are being interfered with while away from Mummy.....