Footballers Sacked
 

Over the weekend, two A grade Rugby League players were involved in a brawl outside a nightclub in Brisbane. These guys are pretty high profile players, and the police have charged one of them with assault and the other has only been questioned but not charged. Meanwhile, a man lies in hospital in a serious condition after allegedly being 'king hit' by one of these players.

The Bronco's (the club the players are/were contracted to) launched their own investigation into the matter on Sunday and have found the players to be in breech of not only their club contract but also the NRL (national rugby league) code of conduct.

I think the club has done the right thing here, and it's not the first player they've sacked or 'let go' due to inappropriate behaviour outside sport.

I fully support the fact that high profile players have a social responsibility to their club and to their fans and when they behave badly they should be punished.

They should have no trouble getting a job with the NFL Oakland Raiders.

I dont know.....I am a fence sitter in this debate.

On the one hand, I know high profile sports people should be setting an example.....on the other hand.....I have problems with them being held to a higher law as such.

I guess, if they sign a contract with TOS, then they should abide by it, but I dont know.....it just shits me to see them dragged over the coals because they are *celebrities*.

I see your point there Ducks and to a certain degree I agree however, for one thing they did have a contract and agreed to a certain level of conduct so that's the thing to pushes me to one side of the fence.

It's like if I wear my work shirt with my work emblem on it to the shops after work. If I decided to get light fingered and got caught (or committed any other crime), it would reflect poorly on my company and it would also cause people to ask questions about the sort of people employed in my industry.

Aside from that, for me there's the whole role model thing. Look at Andrew Johns. He admitted to taking ecstasy and other drugs and avoiding NRL drug tests for 10 years and yet he's not been prosecuted in law, and he's a retired player however, because his profile is so high, and he was such a great player, there have been no formal consequences. I think a little public shame is called for. Now Bellamy wants to hire him as assistant coach for the blues next year? Fuck that! He's a drug cheat and he broke the law. He should be jail.

Sure, jail everyone that admits to ever taken illegal drugs, including anyone that admits to have consumed alcohol when the were still under age.

OK, maybe that was a bit harsh, but my point is that it's not good for kids to see that there are no consequences.

They're seeing no harm/no foul, all around them.... if you're rich/famous.

Well this thread isn't about everything else. It's about footballers. Two in particular and a third as an anecdote.

My point with this thread is that I think the club has done the right thing and it sets a good example to youngsters who see these people as role models.

I agree they did the right thing, but it is contrary to what we are seeing in the rest of the sports/entertainment/celebrity scene.

Oh, and limiting the scope and direction of a thread? Bwahahahahahahahaha.

Well that's true, however as with most things, if one person/club/organisation decides to take a stand, it paves the way for others to follow suit. I hope this is the case in this instance.

BTW, the players that got sacked were from MY team, so I'm not even unbiased in this case.

If they play well, that is what they are paid to do, after hours is after hours.
They are not paid to raise people's kids.

they signed a contract to uphold a code of conduct regardless of the hour

If you want to play sports at a national level you have to take account of the fact that you then become an ambassador of that sport. That's why the TOS include references to not bringing the club or the sport into disrepute.

Does anyone else want to point out the second meaning of 'Footballers Sacked in US lingo?

Is a rugby player considered a 'footballer' too? Is rugby itself called football? You brits/aussies confuse the bejesus out of me sometimes...

But this also demonstrates that it is possible to take recreational drugs and still be great at what you do. Whether it be rugby league, Aussie rules (Ben Cousins, wasn't it?) Olympic snowboarding... or regular life.
Damn, that's inconvenient when you're trying to tell the kiddies that Drugs Are Bad.

Shame... If I had a club I would not include that in my contact and hire all the best players regardless of their personal lives and win.

I did, but you beat me to it.

What do Aussies/Brits call it when someone takes the ball away from the quarterback before he's able to pass or run?

I always thought John Hopoate should have got a job with the professional "wrestling" of the WWE/WWF whatever it is. He's mad, bad, tough ... and he's got the signature move from hell... bahahahah

(see wikipedia for details of the most suspended rugby league player of the modern era: drunk at training, abusing refs, abusing ball-boys, a head-high tackle, and the infamous "finger" incident : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hopoate )

Bad luck? ;)

Srsly though, in most codes played here, we have half backs or full backs. They sometimes have the ball stolen and if it's a one on one tackle, the opposing side gets to keep the ball.

If there are more than one opposition players in the tackle, it's a penalty to the side that had the ball in the first place.

That's for rugby league anyway. The rules are different for other codes.

Yeah, or that maybe the drugs he was taking made him better than he normally would have been.

And don't forget, the player whose mother runs onto the field the most if he gets tackled.

Rugby Union is a better game... :p

But regardless, Ali your points are valid. A point to consider is that often these guys get held to a higher standard regardless of their previous history. Some are bad boys and should be hammered. I think that is right. Others have no previous history and do one bad thing and get hammered because they are high profile people so the law wants to make an example of them. I think that is wrong. Just because someone makes money and is a high profile person I don't think they should be held to a higher standard unless they are a person with whom a certain public trust has been given, i.e. Policeman and certain public officials. All of this should be taken in consideration of the crime as well.

I think most clubs take all those other factors into consideration and give them far more weight than they should in general. The Broncos are about the only club in the league who have sacked players for poor behaviour, and they are the ones who have the least problems with players acting like dicks in public.

I would also add that they provide players not only with coaching for the field, they also provide them with counselling and financial advise because they're cognizant of the challenges these young players face. I think that's a good thing, and as the team manager stated, there's no reason for them to say they don't know what's expected of them when the club spends a lot of time and money on teaching them these things.

We have some professional sports teams here in the US that could use that approach to their players. My guess is most don't.

I don't think ecstasy is a performance enhancing drug, unless you're in a "dancing like a wanker" competition.
What else did he take?
His style was speed, agility and skill, not brute strength, so I doubt steroids were his thing. Was he ever on stimulants, do you know?
I remember a few times when we was knocked semi-conscious, got up, played brilliantly (but glazed-eyed), and later had no recollection of that period. Maybe PCP? Hell, I'd want it if I was playing any form of rugby (see the "how much do you weigh" thread for explanation).

Well don't you think that's an even worse example for kids and society at large?

Besides that I believe there were a number of different drugs, some of which would be performance enhancing if you wanted to just go and go and go...

So, the spectrum seems to be:
Recreational drugs will turn you into a loser, so they are bad.
Have this beer, it will make you drunk, it is good.
Have this protein supplement, it will help you perform, it is good.
Performance enhancing drugs will turn you into a winner, so they are bad.

Can you explain how we make non-arbitrary distinctions between the bad drugs and the good ones?

But I'm all with you on the violence bit. Violence is bad.
Although, hang on... just because they finsihed it, doesn't mean they started it.
Don't they have the right of self-defense? And a fair trial?

As I said, the club did their own investigation. Do you think they would have dumped them if they felt they'd acted in self defence for example? Probably not after they've already invested a great deal of money in the players.

With regard to drugs, I can't explain how the distinctions are made other than how quickly they will kill you if you get a bad batch. I don't know of anyone who has ever keeled over after a bad drop of red, but I do know people who've died because they snorted something impure. I believe that's probably a similar distinction that a lot of other people make when they think about good and bad drugs.

Legal protien supplements aren't classed as drugs if you're just having whey powder. It's when they lace them with steroids that they become illegal.

Anyway, one of the players involved has been charged and he'll front court. The other was simply involved in the melee. Maybe a tough call for him to have been dumped, but maybe the club wants to send a clear message to other young players.

NB Paragraphs rearranged by theme. Hope you don't mind.

Some good points, I grant you. The club would probably prefer to keep players than have to dump them. But even a friendly club investigation still doesn't constitute fair trial. And particularly tough on the non-charged guy.

I'm probably :dedhorse: but the lethal overdose argument doesn't cut it (so to speak). Sculling a bottle of spirits will kill you (and quite a few people die this way). smoking an ounce of cannabis won't.
If it is the impurities that worry you, they are there because the drug is illegal.
:blah: If you haven't heard this all before then I congratulate you on recently emerging from your 20 year coma.

You've ducked the issue there. I am asking why they are classed as drugs and made illegal.

I offer this olive branch: the distinctions between good drugs and bad drugs are arbitrarily placed. There is no non-arbitrary way of placing them. Yet we need distinctions, the only other option being anything goes. Therefore we have to make do with arbitrary distinctions. But, since we acknowledge that they are arbitrary, it is legitimate to argue about where they should be drawn and to argue in favour of moving them.

Whaddayareckon, mate?

OMG! I think my plumber got a parking ticket!!!

I reckon you're just shit stirring. :alien:

Srsly, of course the distinctions are arbitrarily placed. How would you solve that issue? I don't have an answer, so I offered my view of what the distinction is.

They broke the terms of their contract, so basically, that was it. They signed an agreement to behave in a certain way in public and they failed.

To go one step further, the players had both been drinking, so perhaps their bad judgement started from the point when they decided it'd be a good idea to go to a nightclub fully loaded.

I saw my bank teller drinking coffee.... she may be Mormon... I'm gonna' get her sacked!

I really would be a fan of a team that advertised "We are going to just get the best possible players we can... just that. That will be the ONLY think in their contract, WIN and we pay you."
Man, I would so wear that shirt.
They could be called The Winners! It would be AWESOME!

I'm getting excited about this... gonna' patent the idea...

A team that is built to win... just win. Get their players from all the others who were kicked-off the others for not being nice enough.
Their contract just says you win the game, comply with the rules of the league while on the field and in uniform and you are home free... that is all. It is not your job to raise people's kids.
Buy all the cars you want, get all the hoes pregnant you want, live in any hood you want, dress how you like in public, be seen in any strip joint you want, get any tattoo you want, blow-off an signing event you want, get your teeth plaited in gold and silver and your hair dyed blue and sign any endorsement you want... just WIN.

Then nobody will like your team, dude. You'll just be a gang who happens to play a sport. You'll have a team of hoodlums, of jerks, of bullies, of general undesirables. You will have no team charisma, and that is the real killer there. Nobody likes your team, then nobody pays you, pays to see you, pays for your endorsements, etc.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the REAL reason these kinds of people get sacked. Not civic duty, not appearance, not ethics, but cold hard cash.

There are salary caps in rugby league which means that each club can only spend a certain amount of money on talent. If they breach that cap, they can lose their competition points.

The idea is to keep the competition competitive.

I never said I would pay more than the league allowed or stated that the players would break any rules while in uniform or on the field.

Ibram... I think you would be VERY disappointed.
Yeah, Charles Barkley was really despised and hated... still is... sure. All those like him are :cool:
NOBODY pays endorsements to the show-boaters and the hot-shots... the touchdown dancers and the hot-rods... how silly of me... I forgot!

I am talking endorsements from adult companies... a team for adults, by adults, beer ads, unashamed hot cheerleaders who used to work in porn (or still do!), NO MASCOT... just the highest paying endorcer.... just WIN!

even adults don't like idiots rkz. Well, most of them don't.

Franchise out... basketball, football, rugby, bowling (with cheerleaders and cigars), hockey, you name it The Winners will have a team!

That's why no one watches reality tv.:p

Creative Idea, RK, but I don't think it would fly.
Firstly, I think (I'm not sure - Aliantha, can you confirm?) that in the Australian rugby league, and the Aussie rules footy league, the players' off-field behaviour is governed by a league-wide, not club-based, contract. Same rules for all players. So individual clubs cannot flout the system as you suggest. How is it in your part of the globe?
Also, team sports need team players. Jerks and louts rarely make good team players, and the more jerks together, the worse things get. A team can usually handle one or two jerks, (more for larger teams of course) but a team full of egotistical, arrogant, ill-disciplined bozos isn't going to prosper.
Also, the distinction between on and off field gets blurry. Can a player turn up to training hungover? drunk? still high? How about turning up to games like that? abusing the coach? Getting in fights with their team mates?
Notice, though, most of this doesn't apply for individual sports. Mike Tyson is the obvious example. Bad boy. Baaaaaaad. Didn't do too much harm to his boxing career, not that I followed it too closely. But maybe that says as much about boxing ...
And sponsors want more than winners. They want wholesome winners, because the "family values" section of the market is rich and powerful.
So, well it might make an interesting soap/drama (or reality TV show) but as a major league sports franchise business plan ... don't sell the house.

With a lot of drugs there are risks. You can end up snorting/injecting/swallowing something that isn't what it's supposed to be and which results in a fatality or illness. But then again, how many people die of food poisoning every year? Or from a first-time anaphalactic response to something they've developed an allergy to?

As for ecstacy. I still do not understand why this drug is illegal. The prime danger when taking ecstacy is that you may in fact be taking an entirely different (and very dangerous) substance, which has been marked and sold as MDMA. That risk would be seriously reduced if it was legal and regulated (bear in mind unregulated, bootleg alcohol can cause blindness, brain damage and death).

From NationMaster:

also

Most of those ill-effects can be countered with better education on the safe use of the drug. We get governmental warnings and advice about the safe consumption of alcohol. And alcohol is regulated to ensure it is safe to consume in limited quantities. In terms of the temporary depression post-ecstacy use, the so-called 'come-down': how is that different to a hangover? In terms of long-term effects, the dangers of long-term alcohol consumption are well known, well-documented and consequently avoidable. Alcohol is highly addictive, whilst ecstacy has yet to be shown as such.

It seems to me a little off-kilter to point to drugs which are dangerous precisely because they are unregulated, but which are apparently safe when regulated, and say they are inherently dangerous. It's even more off-kilter to suggest that a heavily regulated (and therefore 'safe') drug, like alcohol, is inherently safe. It's the regulation of that drug that makes it safe and the lack of regulation of the other that makes it dangerous.

That is correct. The NRL and AFL have a code of conduct which players are expected to follow however, the league itself isn't as harsh on players as some individual clubs because they would not want to be seen as disadvantaging one club over another.

I like how you stated that my idea would not work and ended with the Mike Tyson and sponsor examples. Nice work there. :rolleyes:

I am guilty of poor editing.

The Mike Tyson point was meant as an exception to my point that a team full of louts would be dysfunctional as a team, but this doesn't apply to individual sports. This should have gone one paragraph higher, to more tightly follow the team spirit comment or else right at the end, since it is the only exception. But individuals aren't franchises, your business plan doesn't apply here.

The point about sponsorship was a stand alone point, not a follow-on to the Tyson point. Very few companies would sponsor your teams. You'd be targeting a small niche market.

So, these paragraphs were intended to show extra reasons why your bad-boy winners franchise plan is unlikely to prosper.

Hell, try it. It'll be your mortgage.