sonnyfaifan
Kennel Enthusiast
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,188
- Reaction score
- 4
by paul kent
NO DOUBT Willie Mason and his posse will be writing to their club accountants today, instructing them to dock their pay slips.
After all, it's only a fair turnabout that if Willie and the Poor Boys went seeking a pay rise in response to the NRL's annual $90 million sponsorship deal, they will be equally fair-minded about taking a pay cut now the deal is about to crash.
Their act of goodwill continues the trend of late for the game's shareholders taking one for the good of the game.
Everyone, from coaches to players, to officials and even owners, have all stepped up in the past week, each of them willing to – like Willie – add their own spice to the melting pot that makes rugby league the popular topic of choice at the Monday morning smoko.
As anybody who survived the Super League war knows, such moments of self-interest, blinkered vision, blind optimism and hopeless romanticism is what rugby league survives on.
Nothing stirs like controversy. Where it all began was with Willie's comments some weeks back that NRL players should strike during the State of Origin series in demand for higher salaries.
It seemed to open a doorway to a whole raft of half-truths and distortions from players and coaches that is in serious need of pulling up for fear someone might actually believe they were serious.
First off, Willie came out soon after the story stirred the public and claimed that he was taken out of context.
Not bad, but Willie was betrayed by the fact his comments originated from his own newspaper column.
As in, he wrote it himself.
Realising the absurdity of this, Mason stayed mum until he appeared on The Footy Show and, aware the next probing question on that fine institution will be the first, this time claimed with little opposition that he was not so much pushing for a strike but was merely throwing it up more as a choice the players could consider.
Happily for everyone, this was accepted as the stated fact and it died a quick and natural death.
A similar piece of misinformation did the rounds last week when Rabbitohs winger Nathan Merritt claimed racist selectors could have been the reason why he was not picked in the City-Country game.
First off, in defence of the comments, it was suggested that Merritt did not make the allegation but merely confirmed the possibility when asked a loaded question.
This smokescreen worked well because nobody stopped to consider that Merritt made his comment to The Daily Telegraph and also to Channel 9 – a competitor in the industry – meaning they would have had to conspire to drive up the story.
The smoky took another turn when Souths owner Peter Holmes a Court was on NRL On Fox last Wednesday and co-host Laurie Daley rightfully claimed, in his other role as selector, that he was offended at the allegation.
Holmes a Court changed the argument from allegations of racism to the right for free speech, which nobody was ever denying.
Acknowledging the rugby league mantra that the game thrives on controversy, Holmes a Court pitched his argument along the lines that Merritt had his say, Daley had his say back, and isn't it great it has got us all talking about league and providing the very controversy the game survives on.
Holmes a Court earned his rugby league spurs right there. It was a neat deflection away from the true issue: as Daley acutely felt, more often these days the onus is on the target to prove he is not a racist than it is on the accuser to prove it, and those stains can stick.
The debate provided a nice lead-in to the old chestnut about scheduling and how TV's demands were too heavy for the modern footballer.
This time it was coaches saying the demands placed on footballers, for so many games, would lead to premature endings for the game's stars if it continued.
This is another reason why all coaches' comments should be approached with caution.
When coaches stop needling players to get them on the park, when they stop cajoling players or pressuring them to play through injury – surely a bigger factor in shortening careers than heavy schedules – maybe then can their concerns be taken more seriously.
Until then, well ... increased programming has occurred all around the world as different sports compete for a share ofthe moneypot.
What's rarely acknowledged by the teams, or sports, is networks are in a similar battle for survival and must pack their programming with quality content to win their battle. That's why they pay the big bucks.
And since the networks are the ones pouring in the money, they will always determine the scheduling, no matter what the coaches prefer.
The best the coaches can do is recognise it and plan for it and find the best way to manage it before their competitors because it won't change.
And they can remember this: it's the money for the coverage, and the money that the coverage attracts in sponsorship, which is why the players get the big bucks.
Which started this whole debate in the first place.
source : http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21683358-5006066,00.html
NO DOUBT Willie Mason and his posse will be writing to their club accountants today, instructing them to dock their pay slips.
After all, it's only a fair turnabout that if Willie and the Poor Boys went seeking a pay rise in response to the NRL's annual $90 million sponsorship deal, they will be equally fair-minded about taking a pay cut now the deal is about to crash.
Their act of goodwill continues the trend of late for the game's shareholders taking one for the good of the game.
Everyone, from coaches to players, to officials and even owners, have all stepped up in the past week, each of them willing to – like Willie – add their own spice to the melting pot that makes rugby league the popular topic of choice at the Monday morning smoko.
As anybody who survived the Super League war knows, such moments of self-interest, blinkered vision, blind optimism and hopeless romanticism is what rugby league survives on.
Nothing stirs like controversy. Where it all began was with Willie's comments some weeks back that NRL players should strike during the State of Origin series in demand for higher salaries.
It seemed to open a doorway to a whole raft of half-truths and distortions from players and coaches that is in serious need of pulling up for fear someone might actually believe they were serious.
First off, Willie came out soon after the story stirred the public and claimed that he was taken out of context.
Not bad, but Willie was betrayed by the fact his comments originated from his own newspaper column.
As in, he wrote it himself.
Realising the absurdity of this, Mason stayed mum until he appeared on The Footy Show and, aware the next probing question on that fine institution will be the first, this time claimed with little opposition that he was not so much pushing for a strike but was merely throwing it up more as a choice the players could consider.
Happily for everyone, this was accepted as the stated fact and it died a quick and natural death.
A similar piece of misinformation did the rounds last week when Rabbitohs winger Nathan Merritt claimed racist selectors could have been the reason why he was not picked in the City-Country game.
First off, in defence of the comments, it was suggested that Merritt did not make the allegation but merely confirmed the possibility when asked a loaded question.
This smokescreen worked well because nobody stopped to consider that Merritt made his comment to The Daily Telegraph and also to Channel 9 – a competitor in the industry – meaning they would have had to conspire to drive up the story.
The smoky took another turn when Souths owner Peter Holmes a Court was on NRL On Fox last Wednesday and co-host Laurie Daley rightfully claimed, in his other role as selector, that he was offended at the allegation.
Holmes a Court changed the argument from allegations of racism to the right for free speech, which nobody was ever denying.
Acknowledging the rugby league mantra that the game thrives on controversy, Holmes a Court pitched his argument along the lines that Merritt had his say, Daley had his say back, and isn't it great it has got us all talking about league and providing the very controversy the game survives on.
Holmes a Court earned his rugby league spurs right there. It was a neat deflection away from the true issue: as Daley acutely felt, more often these days the onus is on the target to prove he is not a racist than it is on the accuser to prove it, and those stains can stick.
The debate provided a nice lead-in to the old chestnut about scheduling and how TV's demands were too heavy for the modern footballer.
This time it was coaches saying the demands placed on footballers, for so many games, would lead to premature endings for the game's stars if it continued.
This is another reason why all coaches' comments should be approached with caution.
When coaches stop needling players to get them on the park, when they stop cajoling players or pressuring them to play through injury – surely a bigger factor in shortening careers than heavy schedules – maybe then can their concerns be taken more seriously.
Until then, well ... increased programming has occurred all around the world as different sports compete for a share ofthe moneypot.
What's rarely acknowledged by the teams, or sports, is networks are in a similar battle for survival and must pack their programming with quality content to win their battle. That's why they pay the big bucks.
And since the networks are the ones pouring in the money, they will always determine the scheduling, no matter what the coaches prefer.
The best the coaches can do is recognise it and plan for it and find the best way to manage it before their competitors because it won't change.
And they can remember this: it's the money for the coverage, and the money that the coverage attracts in sponsorship, which is why the players get the big bucks.
Which started this whole debate in the first place.
source : http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21683358-5006066,00.html
![[FKN-SIK]](/forum/data/avatars/m/1/1928.jpg?1456554858){kind=avatar}
