Two big names, and two very ambivalent responses to persistent media enquiries. I am referring to Messrs Todd Greenberg and Ricky Stuart.
These are two high profile rugby league personalities who are highly skilled at telling their inquisitors what they want, and not necessarily what the pen, notebook and microphone brigade wants to know.
Let us examine Greenberg first-up.
In the early rounds of 2013, the Ben Barba drama exploded at Canterbury as though the game had stepped on a land mine.
Here was the standout player of 2012 – the Dally M winner – in all sorts of trouble: gambling and alcohol problems galore.
And he didn’t want to play for any team, let alone his beloved Bulldogs.
There had been a bust-up with his beloved wife, Ainslie. Domestic violence Mr Greenberg? No answer, deflection.
The question was asked again, several times. No answer from Mr Greenberg, just more deflection.
The-then Bulldogs CEO kept harping on about alcohol and gambling problems seriously affecting his star fullback. He would be stood down indefinitely, counselling would happen, he might return sometime this season, or maybe the next. The Bulldogs were all about the player’s welfare, said Todd Greenberg.
But was there domestic violence Mr G? Yet another deflection by the man who would eventually leave the Bulldogs and take up the plum position as Head of League, NRL.
I understand the NRL’s integrity unit is looking hard at this issue as you read this. Yes, this ‘hard look’ has been triggered by publication of a newspaper photo a woman’s bleeding lip – the woman is supposedly Ainslie Barba.
Pesky media. Damn you again…..
May I say straight up here that I believe Todd Greenberg is the best official in the NRL.
I hope that one day he runs the entire joint.
But I have major qualms about this Bulldogs/Barba business. Greenberg was asked directly, many times, if domestic violence was an issue with the club’s decision to stand Ben Barba down. He did not answer.
To me, that is deceitful, and not befitting a (now) very senior officer of the National Rugby League. It cannot help Todd Greenberg’s reputation if it eventually transpires that Barba and his wife’s separation was due in any way to domestic violence.
And now we will look at Mr Ricky Stuart.
After Parra’s surprise win over St George-Illawarra on Monday night, Stuart was quizzed about rumours he would be coaching the Canberra Raiders next year.
He did not answer, one way or another.
He insisted that such questions should be asked at the end of the season and that the media present should be concentrating on the Eels and their gritty win over St George-Illawarra.
I would have thought that a head coach coming to the end of year one of a three-year contract would have ‘sprayed’ the media people, stressing that he had two – maybe more – seasons to go at his current club.
Nup. You will never be any good at poker, Ricky.
See you at Canberra, or maybe even somewhere else next year.
And if you want the media people to believe in you, even for a nano-second, I’d recommend you hit them with a semblance of the truth.
Once would be a very good start.
davos
Guest
ill second that Christo ..I have never rated this bloke as a coach .....but clubs keep chasing and stumping up enormous amounts to get him Why ?
john badseed
Guest
Didn't seem to have any problem doing it to Brett Stewart. Don't magistrates read the Tele?
barfly
Guest
Bearfax, well said.....................................
Darren Wyer
Guest
He should of been suspended for 12 months the same as Robert lui for his domestic violence issue the precedent was set whether The reasons were made public or not all the fans want is consistency
Bearfax
Guest
Greenburg: I'm very disappointed with his actions in this matter if it proves to be what it seems and that he hid the truth. I considered him the great hope of rugby league, the man to carry us back to prominence in the next decade. My personal opinion is that he should be given a serious caning by the League and the public, but if he admits his wrongdoing and apologised, especially to Barba's partner, then I say let him retain the job. We need an innovative presence running the game and he seemed like the shining light. But he needs to be I think heavily fined and warned that such future action will result in immediate dismissal. Stuart: He signed a contract with a get out clause so legally he has every legal right to walk. Morally he has agreed to undertake to address Parras woes, and they certainly need someone to pull them through their dilemma and quickly. Parramatta, like Penrith represent a huge proportion of Rugby League fans in the west and with GWS making inroads, we need a strong Eels and Panthers. It would be somewhat of a betrayal if Stuart leaves, because he knew what he was getting into and one would hope he doesnt just take the easy way out.
barfly
Guest
Ricky leaving or staying really I don't give a rats arse,and im a parra fan.If he stays I love him,goes good luck to him.But talk all u want about Benny and Tod but remember this he only missed three games.Thats three games. Bulldogs were going woeful so they put him straight back in.........Punishment be fitting the crime..................I think not.......................
barfly
Guest
yeah he missed three games...............that will teach him a lesson,
barfly
Guest
dude there was a incident that both Todd spoke to Ben then Ben accepted re-hab..........................think about mate take off the blinkers massive cover up.................
barfly
Guest
yeah ur right no crime , she f hit herself.................................
Pest
Guest
Don't you find it alittle odd that earlier this year he was pressed by the media about alleged photos , were he denied there existance, how about not being entirely honest with the real reason Barba was stood down , why has all this come out now , and not before he made the move to the NRL admin and Barba to Bris?? Why wernt Bris made aware of the Barba situation prior to him signing , there's no transperacy here it's taken too long for the details to be made public,
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
Please provide evidence that Greenberg has covered anything up.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
None of us know all the facts, so claiming there is a cover-up is either premature, or flat out wrong.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
I'm constantly amazed Fittler is offered any job that involved talking. It really isn't his strong suit...
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
Untenable? You have proof he's acted inappropriately?
Pest
Guest
Greenburgs covered it up , taking into account his position it's now worse than the crime, so much for integ ,,, how can this bloke hold his position , Brandys right , untenable
Dave
Guest
Why does everyone keep saying Greenberg is an excellent and savvy administrator? Bulldogs have had a very poor record when it comes to off field incidents and they clearly had not changed anything under Greenbergs guidance. When it comes to the football side of it he's not much better. I don't call trying to buy the Manly club genius when they just won the Premiership for a second time in three years. A big cheque book doesn't make you a freakin Einstein. $100,000 for a minor premiership last year ain't real good return for the massive money they paid Hasler and Cleal. That's not savvy. -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
Tim Prentice
Expert
Hutchoman, if Greenberg went public with plausable reasons for his actions I think he'd regain some of the lost esteem. He appeals to me as an excellent administrator but I believe this shady issue needs clarification. If his explanation is perfectly understandable, I see no reason why he cannot one day reign as League's Head Honcho.
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
agree Rodney but Robz makes a great point in the comment before yours. It's a complex issue and not made easier by the media scrutiny if the victim is adverse the the publicity.
Pomoz
Roar Rookie
Tim, why should a player's indiscretions be made public? I have seen no valid reason offered other than to satisfy the nosy public. Employees of companies in other industries do not have their breaches of work rules or civil crimes, published on the company intranet, or circulated by email. Why is a player different? I understand that sponsors and the NRL should be informed of matters that may impact the games image if they become public, but that doesn't mean they should be made public. I don't see how it is fair to publish details of what allegedly happened if the victim asks for it to be kept quiet. Remember, this is about the victim's welfare, not the players. I would have thought the appropriate way to deal with this matter would be to respect the victim's wishes, report the matter to the NRL (because this may become an issue in the future which will create negative publicity for the game) and to the club's sponsors (in case of negative publicity) and deal with the player in an appropriate manner (presuming the incident is proven), with a fine, suspension or both. That is being transparent to the people who have a right and a need to know what happened. Everybody else, move on, nothing to see here.
Hutchoman
Roar Pro
Tim, I find it very difficult to reconcile your hope that Todd Greenberg "one day runs the entire joint" with the rest of this article, specifically a suggestion that Mr Greenberg may have been less than liberal with the truth in a matter of the utmost seriousness. I would appreciate your thoughts in reconciling these two apparently contradictory points of view.