2019 NIB Knights

Brown...

I still don't see why he hasn't just placed him with the reserve grade squad and told him to train there. That way it wouldn't be some bizarre move singling him out, it would simply be a coaching decision that he isn't part of FG squad Brown wants to play. That said, perhaps he gave Tapine the decision to either train with the ressies or on his own and he chose the latter hoping his manager could use it as he is now. Don't always get the full details on these things.

Archer wrote:I still don't see why he hasn't just placed him with the reserve grade squad and told him to train there. That way it wouldn't be some bizarre move singling him out, it would simply be a coaching decision that he isn't part of FG squad Brown wants to play. That said, perhaps he gave Tapine the decision to either train with the ressies or on his own and he chose the latter hoping his manager could use it as he is now. Don't always get the full details on these things.

Unless the "isolation" comes out as false, or an exaggeration, or whatever, the Knights will be fuming with Brown's actions nearly as much as Tapine's I reckon.

SI wrote:

Unless the "isolation" comes out as false, or an exaggeration, or whatever, the Knights will be fuming with Brown's actions nearly as much as Tapine's I reckon.

Agreed.

SI wrote:

Unless the "isolation" comes out as false, or an exaggeration, or whatever, the Knights will be fuming with Brown's actions nearly as much as Tapine's I reckon.

Archer wrote:
Agreed.

"Isolation" jeez must be tough training on your own after dumping your team mates and club after they stuck by you

this isn't just a oh you have signed for someone else we are going to punish you, he assaulted someone the knights and team mates stuck by him then he dumps them at the first sign of some extra $

The thing is though, that's not all too uncommon (There is a laundry list of things Raiders did for Milford over the years and you could say the same for any number of players). Rightly or wrongly I think players just see it as a club looking after their investment and no different to getting them back on the field after a major injury through rehab. If they spend 6-12 months out injured leading into their final contract year should they be punished for not staying loyal if more money is on offer?

They then start to look at situations where a player has taken less money to stay at a club and winds up getting replaced when a better offer comes along first chance the club gets. It all leads to loyalty meaning a lot less to players and Browns actions coming off as spiteful and unprofessional (as I said he could have just had him play with the ressies and a lot less would be made of it)

Don't get me wrong, I understand why the club and fans are upset, I would be too and I'd love for the NRL to empower clubs and give them a better shot at keeping the Tapine's and Milfords of the game. I just think Brown has handled it a little poorly (not that I'm taking Tapine's side, I love it when a player shows loyalty and think they tend to under-appreciate what clubs do for them)

Completely understand what happened. I have also stated that I think Tapine is a shit cunt morally for what he has done. I am talking objectively. My personal opinion is Tapine can go and get fucked.

If this was pretty much any other company in Australia, the Knights would be in the wrong for what Brown has reportedly done as the employer of Tapine, not Tapine himself as the employee. Now obviously it is an NRL club. But one day this will not be tolerated even in footy clubs.

The fact the Knights stood by him will actually work against them if this goes further. But personally I think he will be at the Raiders by Round 1 and it will all go away.

SI wrote:Completely understand what happened.  I have also stated that I think Tapine is a shit cunt morally for what he has done.  I am talking objectively.  My personal opinion is Tapine can go and get fucked.

If this was pretty much any other company in Australia, the Knights would be in the wrong for what Brown has reportedly done as the employer of Tapine, not Tapine himself as the employee.  Now obviously it is an NRL club.  But one day this will not be tolerated even in footy clubs.

The fact the Knights stood by him will actually work against them if this goes further.  But personally I think he will be at the Raiders by Round 1 and it will all go away.

Can it not be seen in the same light as an employer putting an employee through years of training, university courses etc find out the emplyer has assaulted someone, sticking by them then a few months down the line when they are fully qualified in the trained role the employee ups and leaves for a competing company for more money? The last month before his notice is up the employer makes the employee work from the tea room...


fuck him.

haha

Welshy wrote:

SI wrote:Completely understand what happened.  I have also stated that I think Tapine is a shit cunt morally for what he has done.  I am talking objectively.  My personal opinion is Tapine can go and get fucked.

If this was pretty much any other company in Australia, the Knights would be in the wrong for what Brown has reportedly done as the employer of Tapine, not Tapine himself as the employee.  Now obviously it is an NRL club.  But one day this will not be tolerated even in footy clubs.

The fact the Knights stood by him will actually work against them if this goes further.  But personally I think he will be at the Raiders by Round 1 and it will all go away.

Can it not be seen in the same light as an employer putting an employee through years of training, university courses etc find out the emplyer has assaulted someone, sticking by them then a few months down the line when they are fully qualified in the trained role the employee ups and leaves for a competing company for more money? The last month before his notice is up the employer makes the employee work from the tea room...


fuck him.

haha

Believe me, I know exactly what you are saying mate. But no, my company wouldn't do that; and personally I wouldn't either. I've had workers under me who I've taught all I know, and they have gone on to promotions at other sites and other companies on my recommendation. I show everyone the respect they deserve from a work point of view, regardless of their personal lives-as long as their personal lives do not affect their performance at work.

It's one thing to be pissed off at feeling used as an employer; it's another thing to single out an employee wanting to better themselves. He's a shit cunt no doubt, and I wish him the worst, but the Knights have his services for a full season. It WAS completely up to them what they got out of him. All Brown has done now is played straight into the lap of Tapine by giving him even more of a chance of being a Raider by Rd 1.

Welshy wrote:

Can it not be seen in the same light as an employer putting an employee through years of training, university courses etc find out the emplyer has assaulted someone, sticking by them then a few months down the line when they are fully qualified in the trained role the employee ups and leaves for a competing company for more money? The last month before his notice is up the employer makes the employee work from the tea room...


fuck him.

haha

Not sure what it's like over there Welshy but you just can't get away with doing things like that in Australia anymore. Personally I think its a shame, I've had a few people working for me that I wouldn't mind sending to the naughty corner but it's classed as bullying/harassment/discrimination now.

Meh, its just business.

He has signed elsewhere, he can play reggies because its not in the best interests of the team to keep him in the FG squad. Surely thats how it gets put in place. "Not in the team's best interests to have him in the side".

If the raiders can find money to pay him now, then let him go. Why keep him around if he isn't going to help the team at all.

Im bummed he is leaving, looks like he is going to be a very good player - but with the cash the raiders offered (500k/year, WTF) he couldnt say no really.

All of a sudden, the knights are looking very very thin in the front AND the back row.Actually, the entire forward pack is looking thin. Im guessing that Sims moves back to the back row now - and the back row is Tims/Rochow/Kims - will most likely be Tims/Smith/Rochow tho.

Pieman wrote:Meh, its just business.

He has signed elsewhere, he can play reggies because its not in the best interests of the team to keep him in the FG squad. Surely thats how it gets put in place. "Not in the team's best interests to have him in the side".

If the raiders can find money to pay him now, then let him go. Why keep him around if he isn't going to help the team at all.

Im bummed he is leaving, looks like he is going to be a very good player - but with the cash the raiders offered (500k/year, WTF) he couldnt say no really.

All of a sudden, the knights are looking very very thin in the front AND the back row.Actually, the entire forward pack is looking thin. Im guessing that Sims moves back to the back row now - and the back row is Tims/Rochow/Kims - will most likely be Tims/Smith/Rochow tho.

This is the part where I think these things get messy and where potentially the NRL player managers need to start looking at appropriate clauses within their clients contracts.

Personally, I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea of dropping a bloke because he has signed elsewhere for the year afterwards.

It's blatantly cutting off your nose to spite your face and to suggest it is because the club is better served investing in another player is an utter cop out.
If a veteran is the best player for a position, you don't drop him for his final season because he won't be there the season after???

The Knights have contracted the bloke for this season and he is clearly in their best team, so all the club is doing is letting down their fans by not playing him in his final year at the club.

Honeysett wrote:

A kid playing a handful of games is apples and oranges to a veteran retiring.

The kid still needs development and has plenty of room to improve. If he's not going to help your club long term why help develop him instead of getting first grade experience for someone else?

It's exactly the same principle in terms of picking the best players on your roster, regardless of their plans for the future.

The way I see it, the Knights have hired the bloke for this season and to sit him out just because it might benefit the Raiders in the future is simply dismissing the fact that it would currently benefit themselves.

It's incredibly poor management.

Honeysett wrote:

Yeah I can see your point, however if there's someone else eg Bhana who could benefit from more time earlier then you're better off as a club to invest in their future.

If we were a legitimate challenger for the premiership then I would agree because it's one less player but when we're building our squad you want to keep the players that want to stay and continue their development.

Tapine may help us wins games this year but so could someone else and the upside to someone else is they're going to stick around for next year.

Fair enough if there is someone that is his equal but I think it's pretty safe to say he'd easily be in your best team.

As I said it's letting down the fans and no doubt contributes to the lack of optimism at the club i.e. your fans should never be entering a season without a game having been played, thinking that the team isn't a 'legitimate contender'!

I know he isnt really a Fantasy prospect but just read a comment about Levi where he was compared somewhat to Isaac Luke. I only watched him a handful of times and wasnt THAT impressed by him, what did I miss?