Cops urge Manly to ban Hopoate

If you're a sports club, or any other employer, you do not simply ignore information provided by the police. You may not believe it, or want to believe it, but you look into it because the last thing you want is someone on your coaching staff with links to organized crime. If Manly says yep, we got the info, did a thorough investigation and concluded there's nothing to it, fine. But that's not what they're saying.

Manly have chosen to ignore the information because, as far as anybody is aware, no proof has been provided. Did you see the "bombshell" letter in the Telegraph today? Contains zero proof of anything.

I can see the reasoning for having a higher threshold for a coach than player

What I don't get is surely the police check showed a finding of guilt for Assault from his time as bouncer in the Cross. So is there any point to the police check? A police check can't be the "requirement" because it doesn't have a recommendation just a list of what happened. The threshold surely hss to be something else right?

I really don't think you understand the point I'm making at all. He had a chequered career as a player. Fine. Give him a second chance. He's had a few minor run-ins with the police since. Fine. Give him a third chance. Most of it was penny ante stuff, not good role model behaviour, but not the worst of the worst. But if he really does have current, active connections with organized criminal types, that is not fine, that is not okay, that's a risk to the sport. It can't just be ignored or brushed away. At the very least, Manly has to explain why they chose to ignore the information when it was given to them, and allowed him to continue coaching.

Manly should substantiate the links to organised crime and whether there is evidence to suggest that he is involved before proceeding.

The organised crime tenuous link arose 3 weeks ago. Since then meetings have taken place between the NRL and Manly to resolve the issue. But you ignore that Hopoate has been coaching for years. And has plenty of support. Particularly from the Tongan Rugby League where he has been assistant coach. And from the parents who's kids are in immense danger being surrounded by him. That is why Manly wanted him as a coach. He has plenty to teach youngsters, and his strict regiment is well respected. The kids are kept grounded and respond very well to him. He made mistakes in his past others can learn from. He is the first to admit that. Unless you think we should just lock up anybody who has wronged, or perhaps execute them cause they can't possibly give back to society any longer? Obviously things have changed now in the past few weeks, and with the threat of a fine and loss of points, Manly will let him go. But their decision to have him on the coaching staff initially was because, shock horror, he is a very good coach.

I haven't missed the point at all. The NSWRL had no objections to Hopoate being employed as a coach. I get that. The NRL did have objections. There's a conflict of opinion over jurisdiction. Manly believed it was on solid legal ground in hiring Hopoate notwithstanding NRL objections. I get all of that but that's not my issue. My issue is not Manly's legal grounds for hiring Hopoate, but its judgement in doing so in the first place. And once the cops came to them, why would Manly think it was a good idea to continue to employ Hopoate in the face of negative information which raised concerns about possible on-going links to organized crime? Did they look into it themselves and decide it was nothing to worry about, or did they simply ignore the police red flags? Knowing that there was an alleged link with organized crime, did they in fact do the additional due diligence that warning should have entailed? I think that's a legitimate question and I don't think I need to be on the Manly board or in the NSWRL board to ask it.

You miss the point northerner. The NSWRL who have jurisdiction over the SG Ball deemed Hopoate a suitable candidate to coach having passed all the relevant measures. We can discuss it all we want. And put our own spin on what we believe to be right or wrong. But at the end of the day Manly were guided by the rules and regulations set out by the governing body. And therefore were within their right to install Hopoate as a coach.

You realise he has been coaching for far longer than 3 weeks, right? Since the policeman spoke with the NRL and Manly things have been put in place to resolve the issue. Prior to that Manly followed protocol, and Hopoate was well within his right to coach under the NSWRL guidelines.

He should never have been made coach in the first place.... it was a disaster waiting to happen and everyone said it at the time. Manly handed a job to one of the boys and its coming back to bite them.... poor strategy from the start.

I guess I just don't get it. How is having senior cops sitting down with the Manly board and telling them there are serious concerns about the man not a "red flag" in your book?

I had no idea one had to be a member of a club board or of the code administrative body to make a comment or criticism of that club or board's decisions. Does this mean all the people posting on the Roar on team selections, tactics, contract negotiations, the standard of coaching, disciplinary issues, the way the sports are administered and the rest of it are in fact persons in authority in the respective teams or sports? Does it mean that mere fans such as myself should never have the temerity to question the perceived wisdom of the authorities? Interesting. Not sure it will make for much of a discussion, though, if only those in authority get to have a say.

When you become Manly CEO you can bring your standards into it. Until then, Manly and the NSWRL, the people that matter in this situation, have deemed him fit to coach. You can shout your moral obligations next to the NRL on the sidelines

Fingers up bums is a concern at anytime unless of course if I t's concentual

I'd like to know where the ARLC are on this matter. You'd think a yes or no from them would be enough. I mean isn't this the type of thing that a commission does?

It is in the news because the NRL has made it news. Creating controversy when there is none. Meanwhile I wonder if Russell Packer wins an NRL premiership will we see footage of him trying to kill a man by stomping on his head? Or will we see footage of Danny Wicks in chains after leading a drug syndicate. Or the countless other atrocities NRL players have been charged with over the years. Why Hopoate is being treated any differently is beyond me. Second chances appear to be the norm in the NRL. But not in this case it seems. The irony of Todd Greenberg going after him for his lack of integrity is not lost on many.

So you hire someone without doing an AML or CTF? Interesting. Certainly the police checks I've done are more than just "simple record checks" as you stated above. I'm sure this was done for Hopoate throughout the process. No red flags were raised. Now a policeman, out of the goodness of his heart, comes forward to save the children who are clearly in imminent danger. Not that the parents of these kids think that, and they have nothing but praise for Hopoate. Whatever happens with Hopoate, I strongly doubt that Manly will have anything to answer for.

Right. So, we have here a guy who meets the minimum standard. Is that the standard you'd use to hire someone, because it isn't the one I've generally used. I've hired a lot of people in my time, and I look for the ones with good qualifications, good personalities, and good character. I tend not to hire guys who meet the bare minimum standard, especially when I'm being told by the cops that there are some issues. At the very least, I look into those issues before I hire him. If Manly operates differently, I'd want to know why.

Alleged links? So no proof of anything, no charges and no guilty verdict? There is a minimum standard for this role and he has met it. Can he coach? I don't know. If parents have an issue with him as coach they can move their kids to another club. It will be Manly's loss