Several reasons but no excuses for SBW
Roar Rookie By spud murphy, 1 Aug 2008 spud murphy is a Roar Rookie
All the reasons in the world do not excuse Sonny Bill Williams for the betrayal of his friends, his club, his fans, and the game itself.
The blatant disregard he demonstrated and covert manner with which he went about his business was deceptive and cowardly.
After Gasniers’ decision to take advantage of a loophole in his contract, I submitted an article titled Hand Over The Money Or The Game Gets It.
The article suggested that Gasniers’ opportunistic ways may be the catalyst that leads to defections on mass with rugby league being held to ransom.
It would now seem both are highly likely.
It came as no surprise that Williams played the “not fair” card in an attempt to justify his selfish decision. Just like Gasnier before him, Williams acts the martyr.
Both cases are different in circumstances but have common themes, a high awareness of self entitlement and no sense of responsibility or duty to those that helped create their worth.
In Gasniers favour, he is playing out his contract with passion and will leave with friendships, fans and respect intact. Williams on the other hand will not.
Williams will no doubt continue to justify his cloak and dagger betrayal by attacking the salary cap as an unfair restriction of trade and maybe it is, but it can never excuse his lies and deceptions.
His spin doctor “friend” Nasser claimed that we should all consider Sonny’s feelings and that “he had no choice”. Like others I thought depression or relationship problems might be the reason for his spontaneous decision, but it was not spontaneous it was very, very calculated.
It is now evident Sonny was playing every game but rugby league. He lied to all and sundry including a kids charity to cover his tracks, this was a carefully planned and premeditated deception that did not discriminate.
There is no other side to this argument, he has a contract and has not honoured it, he has turned his back on team mates and fans. The validity of the salary cap is another issue altogether.
To make matters worse he knows the game is vulnerable, to walk out is one thing but to put the boot in on the way out is another, there is an element of mean spirited retribution to all of this.
The NRL are far from perfect but they do not inform players of the payment system after contracts are finalised, the players are fully aware of what they are agreeing to and are legally and morally bound to honour them.
The salary cap does restrict individual trade but the intention is to ensure a fair and competitive competition by assisting less financial clubs trade on more level ground, an honourable and sensible notion.
Are the NRL holding out, I don’t think so. And if so, why haven’t the player managers articulated the specifics?
Under the current payment system if marquee players get more money there is less for non-marquee players, the NRL would not be such an attractive proposition to serious juniors and the bottom would fall out.
Would Sonny have cared when he was an up and comer? You bet. Does he care now? Absolutely not.
Lucrative third party agreements would only apply to those few with very high profiles, so any new third party allowances would have minimal impact for the majorit. That’s not the answer.
I would suggest with limited thought that the NRL allow all player managers to negotiate private third party agreements without limitation and replace the salary cap with a “Marquee” or “Representative Player Cap” for clubs.
This could work with as a draft system and should factor in the number of rep games, at what level and have a exemption for local juniors.
This type of system would not restrict individual trade and put the onus on player managers to generate income, it would also maintain an even competition.
Everyone of us is entitled to our worth but we are not entitled to hurt or disappoint those that helped us get where we are and we are certainly not entitled to break agreements with them simply because we’ve arrived.
To most of us, some things in life are priceless.
To Sonny Bill and all that follow his lead, I wish you respect and friendship.
Love this article? Nominate it for The Roar’s Armchair Sports Writer Award. Or vote now for this week’s nominated articles.
Recommend this story.
Jim Beam Devil's Cut
As bourbon ages, a portion of liquid is lost from the barrel due to evaporation. This is known as the Angel's Share. When the bourbon is taken from the barrel, a certain amount is left trapped within the wood. It's that extracted liquid, and the rich flavours from deep within the barrel that are in Jim Beam's Devil's Cut.
Click here to learn more about Jim Beam's wicked new bourbon.
The Crowd Says (5) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
August 1st 2008 @ 8:44am
Recidivist said | August 1st 2008 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Spud, you might not like what SBW has done. I can understand that. However, if you try and ignore the money issue, he has expressed for quite some time that he is not happy at the Bulldogs. The rest of us can give one week (or one month’s) notice and can leave.
Just because he signed a contract doesn’t mean he has stopped being a person. (stay with me here and don’t instantly go back to money). If he was unhappy with management, with future prospects in terms of premierships, or just playing in front of 5,000 people in a 75,000 stadium every second week he should not be told that he can no longer make a decision because he signed a contract (cue for a soundclip of David Gallop talking about the sanctity of the contract)
Now, if SBW’s family got in his ear and told him to sign a 5 year contract because they were worried about his bodies ability to cope with the rigours of footy there is a problem. He would have made a mistake. he would have signed a contract thinking it was a solution when in reality he was not dealing with the underlying issue.
If he does have concerns about survival then Union will be much better for him as a person (but he still has to prove he can play).
On money, he would be mad to not take the $3mn that has been mentioned in the press (but denied by Toulon’s owner). If he tried to discuss leaving with the Bulldogs and they said ‘Non’ then he could call in the lawyer’s and that would cost a lot of money and take a lot of time (lawyer’s get paid by the hour and like things to take longer). On the other hand, what is the Bulldogs real loss? They contractually don’t have to pay him when he doesn’t play. Apart from that they were a slim chance of making the finals and therefore the gate takings etc would be unlikely. Accordingly, the Bulldogs might be a little embarrassed but in terms of the law, there is very little damage suffered. And this way, he takes off and the lawyers don’t get involved and it is much better.
The dirty side to the whole thing is that he stiffed his mates. I reckon you would have to be pretty unhappy to do what he did. I doubt he really is that hungry for a dollar for that to be the main reason.
For this reason, I suggest there are some excuses.
August 1st 2008 @ 6:54pm
matta said | August 1st 2008 @ 6:54pm | Report comment
Ok, I just want say how SBW has every right to do what he did…
Where the hell do we get off treating him and other players like we own them or that they owe us something?Let me tell you this, SBW owes nothing to anyone..
If a coach walks, no one cares…
If a CEO walks, no one cares…
If the CFO of my company walks for more cash, I care but hes with in his rights to do so…
Contracts are mostly made to protect the employe not employer…..
SBW haters, wake up! Just because he plays footy doesnt mean he should have to act differently to the rest of us in our workplaces….sure some of us wouldnt walk for double the money but some sure would..why should footy players be any different?
5 year contract? so what…the NRL dont care about him..they care about the $’s they make from him…oh but let me get the right… he’s meant to show them some sort of old skool respect …
August 3rd 2008 @ 11:38pm
gavin said | August 3rd 2008 @ 11:38pm | Report comment
quote ” Both cases are different in circumstances but have common themes, a high awareness of self entitlement and no sense of responsibility or duty to those that helped create their worth.”
What! What crap! Those that administer the game destroyed the foundation clubs for the mighty dollar, the sport they turned into a ” product ” and they have the hide to attack Williams. They have no right to expect loyalty
The only difference between Williams and myself if I was in that position is I would have looked after the charity before leaving.
August 4th 2008 @ 1:02pm
spud murphy said | August 4th 2008 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
i don’t question his right to earn what he is worth i question the way he went about it and his timing. Ask his teammates what they think, ask the mother that just paid $100 bucks to buy her kid a Sonny Bill jersey what she thinks. As for it being no different from a plumber, are you kidding? And your right matta if a coach walks nobody cares, thats because they are a one man show with a low profile that can be replaced with minimum effect. Players on the other hand have team mates, fans and a high public profile. Forget your rants about what the administrators do to the players and how unfair they are, thats no excuse to deceive and if you think that makes what he did ok, i suggest you check your value system.
August 4th 2008 @ 1:20pm
gavin said | August 4th 2008 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
Spud, I think you are on the right track, even Serge Blanco says SBW should have finished the year out. However, let’s face it, the administrators and sponsors leech what they can from slave labour.
My great concern is, if the players do get higher pay, wiil it effect the price of admittance to a game? Probably will, to cover players wages. So the average poor bloke who wants to take his kids to the game suffers financially.
How much does a Frenchman pay to see these privately owned clubs in France with all this talent ?