Here we go again...

[Force1]

Jen, sorry, you dont seem to understand. I suggest you keep reading the press for a while.

When you've got a job and had some experience you may then get it.

Love your last comment - not sure you'll be saying this if Gits is back at the Brumbies soon.............

[travelling_gerry]

So were you at the game tonight Force1?? Did you enjoy?

[Jehna]

Exactly! Why are we condemning the Force management? I don't think they've done anything that another club in rugby union, in league, in afl, in any industry would not do without the opportunity. I'm tired of this sounding like sour grapes because the force have managed to recruit some brilliant players who now pose a threat to eastside

[travelling_gerry]

Love your last comment - not sure you'll be saying this if Gits is back at the Brumbies soon.............

I didn't think Gits was part of these "dodgy deals"

[Jehna]

Jen, sorry, you dont seem to understand. I suggest you keep reading the press for a while.

When you've got a job and had some experience you may then get it.

And i resent that...big time...save your judgments for when you have the facts

[Force1]

Oh dear. Well, I guess I'm pre-empting things. It'll become apparent later.

Burgs, nice points you make.

Number one rule in the media. When under attack and your guilty, say nothing and make sure you dont get bad media elsewhere.

The West are being held back here. The SMH would love them to push for some truth - but the West journos are too close to the WF... Why write a bad story about a mate? Since when should a journo be independent..

I admire Ryle for his honesty and tenacity. Anyone who knows the truth and knows him, he's doing this to help.

[travelling_gerry]

Trust me..... does not have many friends in the WA Media....its all GayFL here.....

Rick Boyd and Barra are our friends....

[Jehna]

Oh dear. Well, I guess I'm pre-empting things. It'll become apparent later.

Burgs, nice points you make.

Number one rule in the media. When under attack and your guilty, say nothing and make sure you dont get bad media elsewhere.

The West are being held back here. The SMH would love them to push for some truth - but the West journos are too close to the WF... Why write a bad story about a mate? Since when should a journo be independent..

I admire Ryle for his honesty and tenacity. Anyone who knows the truth and knows him, he's doing this to help.

How about the number one rule with the media is to take everything with a grain of salt? And are you sure you understand the WA media? If they were so close to the WF then they'd probably actually report on the WF. We get nothing over here. In fact, the only reports we generally do get are ones which are criticising the force and rugby in general

Like i said before, i hardly think Ryle's intentions lie with getting to the truth...that's hardly the trait of an investigative journalist. AND i don't need to have a job and experience to know that. Though having said that i do in fact have a job and whilst i hardly claim to know everything at the age of 21 i'm not ignorant and i certainly don't appreciate being told that i am

[travelling_gerry]

Oh dear. Well, I guess I'm pre-empting things. It'll become apparent later.

Burgs, nice points you make.

Number one rule in the media. When under attack and your guilty, say nothing and make sure you dont get bad media elsewhere.

The West are being held back here. The SMH would love them to push for some truth - but the West journos are too close to the WF... Why write a bad story about a mate? Since when should a journo be independent..

I admire Ryle for his honesty and tenacity. Anyone who knows the truth and knows him, he's doing this to help.

Well I hope you had a nice evening in Perth Gerard.....

[AndyS]

For mine, F1 can have and voice any opinion he likes - I've met plenty of supporters in many sports that default to the glass-half-empty position and always assume the worst of players and management. But it should be no skin off our collective noses and, if any of us don't like it, just don't read it or respond.

It is a bit tough to get a clear picture of the situation, but my interpretation is that:
1. The Force recruited some players in 2005 with promises of assistance in finding outside work (as opposed to sponsorship). This was permissible under the protocols at the time, as was the ability to cover the lost income if there were delays in finding such work. It is not clear whether that assistance had to be specific to a particular job offer made prior to signing, or was a general offer of assistance in finding an outside job.
2. The Force put aside contingency funds to cover the lost income commitment
3. The ARU subsequently changed the protocols, but did not make them retrospective (otherwise all existing contracts would have had to be re-ratified). All new contracts presumably conform to the new protocols.
4. It seems as though, when the Force had to make good on the commitment made under the old protocols, it is thought to be a big issue because it doesn't conform to the new protocols. I'm not sure what is so tough to understand about "not retrospective".
5. There also seems to be some issue regarding timing of notifying the ARU, but I haven't got my head around that and struggle to see the significance if the contract is a binding document and it conformed to the protocols of the time.

I guess it will be interesting to see if the situation is unique once the ATO review is completed - the results of that will presumably be publicised if there is an issue at any club. As an aside, I'd also be very curious as to the process by which league players transfer across...as teams can't assistance in any way, do a whole bunch of sponsors all separately arrive at the conclusion that a particular player would be good for the code, organise the whole thing and then inform the S14 club of their choice? Remarkable process that! I'd also be curious to know how Tuqiri's new contract came about...the ARU must have had some involvement in organising (or at least approving) sponsorship, but what were the state affiliations of the ARU members? Where does the line get drawn at club involvement, when the franchise is held by the state union, which supplied members to the ARU whic passes judgement.

[Burgs]

Hmm, seems like much bigger issues with National significance that perhaps the SMH leading journalists should look to investigate there Andy....oh hang on, that's right! Firepower isn't involved with the ARU or other State bodies, no story there!

[zimeric]

For mine, F1 can have and voice any opinion he likes - I've met plenty of supporters in many sports that default to the glass-half-empty position and always assume the worst of players and management. But it should be no skin off our collective noses and, if any of us don't like it, just don't read it or respond.

It is a bit tough to get a clear picture of the situation, but my interpretation is that:
1. The Force recruited some players in 2005 with promises of assistance in finding outside work (as opposed to sponsorship). This was permissible under the protocols at the time, as was the ability to cover the lost income if there were delays in finding such work. It is not clear whether that assistance had to be specific to a particular job offer made prior to signing, or was a general offer of assistance in finding an outside job.
2. The Force put aside contingency funds to cover the lost income commitment
3. The ARU subsequently changed the protocols, but did not make them retrospective (otherwise all existing contracts would have had to be re-ratified). All new contracts presumably conform to the new protocols.
4. It seems as though, when the Force had to make good on the commitment made under the old protocols, it is thought to be a big issue because it doesn't conform to the new protocols. I'm not sure what is so tough to understand about "not retrospective".
5. There also seems to be some issue regarding timing of notifying the ARU, but I haven't got my head around that and struggle to see the significance if the contract is a binding document and it conformed to the protocols of the time.

I guess it will be interesting to see if the situation is unique once the ATO review is completed - the results of that will presumably be publicised if there is an issue at any club. As an aside, I'd also be very curious as to the process by which league players transfer across...as teams can't assistance in any way, do a whole bunch of sponsors all separately arrive at the conclusion that a particular player would be good for the code, organise the whole thing and then inform the S14 club of their choice? Remarkable process that! I'd also be curious to know how Tuqiri's new contract came about...the ARU must have had some involvement in organising (or at least approving) sponsorship, but what were the state affiliations of the ARU members? Where does the line get drawn at club involvement, when the franchise is held by the state union, which supplied members to the ARU whic passes judgement.

Andy, that was my take on the matter as well and i seem to recall reading this somewhere too but i cant find it now...

[The EnForcer]

For mine, F1 can have and voice any opinion he likes.

I agree but I think it is the manner in which the opinion is presented that is the issue and as far as I can see it was fairly much designed to be inflamatory and he got what he wanted/deserved.

[JediKnight]

and he got what he wanted/deserved.

So who gave him the spanked bottom with a hot wooden spoon?

[The InnFORCEr]

Dont believe me, keep read the SMH. They're actually trying to help Force members. Unless the office is cleaned up, the Force are likely to LOSE key international players. The SMH knows this, others know this, but members are being kept in the dark.

He didn't exactly name Gits here.