Apparently to be involved in rugby league, you need to be “a fit and proper person”. It’s a line the NRL loves to wheel out whenever someone punted from the game tries to make a comeback.
When Manly were reportedly trying to sign Todd Carney in late 2017, we heard this from head office:
“Any club seeking to register a contract for Todd would need to demonstrate that he is fit and proper to be part of the NRL.”
An NRL spokesperson wheeled the same line out for the same player when the Sharks made enquiries about their former half coming back in 2015: “A club would need to lodge a contract for his return and they would need to show that he was a fit and proper person to play in the NRL.”
Apparently Toddy failed the ‘fit and proper’ test on both occasions.
While in Cronulla, it’s been reported that if Shane Flanagan – who has been deregistered from the game indefinitely – wants to make a comeback, he’d have to measure up on the fitness and properness scale.
Making it a little easier is that at least the former coach has done this before – the Telegraph reporting in September 2014 that “he had to convince [Dave] Smith, [Todd] Greenberg and [Nick] Weeks that he’s a fit and proper person to coach again.”
Flano was carrying a clipboard the following season.
Sharks coach Shane Flanagan (Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
More recently, another former Shark passed the test – one Ben Barba.
At least, that was the implication based on the fact he was cleared to play for the Cowboys.
After sorting out a release from St Helens last August, NRL.com enquired as to whether the now-sacked star would be permitted to play in the Aussie comp:
“An NRL spokesman said head office, as is the case with any player, would need to be satisfied Barba was a fit and proper person in order to be registered.”
Well, he was registered – history of drugs, fights and whispers of domestic violence be damned – so logic suggests Barba was determined fit and proper.
Now, I’m not an NRL Integrity Unit officer, but after the incident at The Ville casino in late January, perhaps they got that one wrong?
Perhaps they got Flanno wrong as well, given he was determined to be a fit and proper person, only to be deregistered over failing to comply with the ban he copped in the first place?
And perhaps they got it wrong when they allowed Carney back in the game after he was dismissed by Canberra, given he went on to be given the boot by both the Roosters and Sharks (as I said early in his time with Cronulla, with talk of redemption flowing based on his form, “when someone stuffs his life up away from football, the football field isn’t where he needs to redeem it”).
Look, we all make mistakes, and the Integrity Unit doesn’t have a crystal ball. But this week, Todd Greenberg intimated that the clubs should have clairvoyant powers.
When announcing that Barba was to be deregistered from the NRL – time to find a new vocation, Ben – Dylan Napa was brought up.
Greenberg was asked by a reporter whether a penalty of Napa missing games would be “harsh” on the Bulldogs, given the videos doing the rounds – not even kidding, Napa was trending on Pornhub a few weeks back (how I know that is really neither here nor there) – were filmed while he was playing for the Roosters.
“It might be, but it’s not my primary concern,” the CEO responded.
“It’s a bit like the Cowboys. It’s a little harsh on them: they are missing a player that’s never laced on a boot for them. That’s the real difficulty with recruitment and retention for clubs.
“My message to clubs is when you are buying and selling players, look equally at the values as opposed to the skill-set. They should be assessed in equal priority.”
And that’s where the brakes come squealing on.
Clubs need to look at a person’s values? Isn’t that what you’re supposed to be doing, Todd, when you determine whether a person is fit and proper to play the game?
The message there is: we looked at Ben Barba, determined he was fine, but the Cowboys were wrong to employ him because his values aren’t good enough.
Likewise with Napa: he was fit and proper to play for the Roosters for the last six years, but Canterbury should have known better than to sign him.
How low are the NRL setting the bar that they say to the Cowboys and Bulldogs, “He’s good enough for us, but he really isn’t good enough for you.”
It’s the definition of a double standard.
(Also, it’s a roundabout way of saying these guys’ previous clubs have shit values.)
Never mind the fact that Paul Green this week said the Cowboys had done a bit of checking on Barba before signing him – “We did the best we could to find out how he was going over the there and it was all good,” he told League Life this week – why is it incumbent upon the clubs to investigate a player if the NRL says they’re in the clear?
(AAP Image/David Moir)
Granted, different clubs espouse vaguely different values, but it’s not unfair to assume the game as a whole would not condone what Barba did (nor, I guess, Napa, although the pair aren’t in the same ballpark if the allegations against Barba are accurate).
Why bring someone’s values into it if said values apparently align with those of head office – at least enough for the top brass to sign off on the player’s contract?
To round things out, at the end of last month, the Sydney Morning Herald reported the Roosters had signed Daniel Anderson.
The former Eels coach was struck off for his part in Parra’s rorting of the salary cap, but is making a return with the premiers in a recruitment role.
However, before he got the gig, “Anderson had to convince the NRL that he was a fit and proper person befitting registration”.
Of course.
But while his fit and properness is now apparently just fine, Anderson will have “some restrictions on his role” – presumably relating to recruitment and retention, which seems fair enough.
But then, if you don’t trust him not to do what he did last time, why bring being fit and proper into the equation at all?
Apparently his values can’t be trusted on the rules for which he has spent two years out of the game, but otherwise he’s fit and proper? How does that make sense?
I’ve made clear previously my belief that it’s not possible that everyone involved in the NRL is a great person – it’s not based on mountains of personal experience (although there was that incident with the representative prop in a McDonald’s), it’s simple maths. Thousands of people in an organisation means some are going to be ordinary human beings.
So it’s not the worst idea in the world to try weed out the dickheads by means of some kind of test.
But to dictate from on high that you know best regarding these matters, then turn around and say it’s the clubs’ fault for employing the people you have determined worthy of playing the game is a really weird slap in the face.
Woody
Guest
If it was just her thigh, it wouldn't have gone to court.
Reesy
Roar Rookie
I’m no Greenberg fan but he didn’t sweep Barba’s previous incident at Canterbury under the carpet. When the incident first appeared to be what it was he advised her to make a police report. Barba’s partner ultimately denied the incident ever occurred and refused to cooperate with Greenberg’s (or the Bulldogs as the case may be) internal investigations. She even threatened to get lawyers involved if they continued to pursue that line of enquiry (from memory I think she did get a lawyer to help refute the allegations). Not much more he could of done under those circumstances. It’s a long stretch to say if something had been done Barba might not have ventured down this current path later. Most of Barba’s poor choices appear to stem from alcohol consumption. 7 hour bender at the Casino for example. Could Greenberg have turned him into a teetotaler? I doubt it
Chuck
Guest
Journalists? Hang their head in shame for enabling the blackmailers, past present and future? Yeah right,like that will happen. The concept of shameful behaviour does not apply to themselves, only others of their choice.
Jason
Guest
I'm failing to see how Napa is some sort of perpetrator here. You mention him in the same breath as Barba, trying to qualify the statement does not stop you from making the link. Every reporter and journalist that published stories about The Napa videos should hang their heads in shame for enabling future blackmail of players and public figures.
Big Daddy
Guest
I don't want to see any player rubbed out of the game but Barba didn't leave Greenberg much choice. What concerns me is Greenberg making these decisions as an individual or are they being made by the NRL as a whole. Napa s situation is not worthy of suspension but the release of this video in relation to other offences is just poor timing.
BA Sports
Roar Guru
Todd needs to worry less about how Clubs manage their recruitment and due diligence and worry more about how the NRL manage their due diligence, because right now, they do not have a clue how to manage with consistency, and balance - seemingly taking all of their cues from the media on what incidents are important to react to. That said, Clubs should do their due diligence - do criminal record checks, snoop around the persons social media activity to get a gauge on the type of person they are, interview them etc. It is standard recruitment for any business. You can't have clairvoyance for every potential scenario, but in the case of Barba - the Cows knew they were taking a risk - and they have been burnt - case closed.
William W
Roar Rookie
I do think that suspending Big Papi or even fining him a large amount will set a dangerous prescient as this will open up possible blackmailing of players who may be involved in similar future incidents. “Pay me” otherwise I will release this video, and so on! The player may feel forced to pay up.
Clanger McClunk
Guest
Geez Ron, that's a broad sweep of the broom. How do you know Greenberg "swept Barba's misdemeanour under the carpet." He challenged the press to go back over the incident at Canterbury saying he dealt with what evidence was in front of him at the time. You suggest Barba MIGHT not have ventured into the same issues nowadays as in 2013 and that's your right. I suggest that someone who is prone to misbehaviour in their younger days could misbehave again years later if it's in their personal make-up. You may have heard an old adage "a leopard never changes it's spots."
Paul
Roar Guru
exactly right, Ron. I'm trying to hit the "Like" button but it must be having a Sunday off!
Michael Keeffe
Roar Guru
I think it's on both the NRL and the clubs. The NRL decides if a person is suitable to play in the NRL or not which really can only go off past behaviour. If they have a clean record then really the NRL needs to register any player clubs want to sign. Clubs however can choose to sign whoever they want. They can have a much higher standard if they want to. They can choose to have a no dickheads policy and not sign a guy who has a clean record but they can tell seems like trouble or too much work for them. For example even though the NRL cleared Matt Lodge to play as a Broncos fan I wish they hadn't. He hasn't put a foot wrong since and good luck to him, but I just wish they had said no to him. Not everyone will agree, but that's me personally.
Ron Norton
Roar Rookie
If Greenberg hadn't swept Barba's misdemeanour at Canterbury under the carpet when both were at that club (CEO and player) Barba MIGHT not have ventured into the same issues later in his career and rugby league might not have lost one of its most brilliant players! Where were Greenberg's clairvoyant powers and fit and proper person credentials then? Based on that performance how the hell was Greenberg determined a fit and proper person to lead the NRL? Makes one wonder doesn't it?
Paul
Roar Guru
"this week, Todd Greenberg intimated that the clubs should have clairvoyant powers". NO he didn't. What Greenburg wants the Club to do is much more investigation into player behaviours off the field so these sorts of issues don't arise, but investigations can only tell you so much and besides, who's going to pay for it? I've selected literally hundreds of people for jobs in my organization and I know before I start the process, I'll probably end up with one or two people who have questionable behaviours that don't show up, even though I've spent considerable time doing background checks on that person. My job, along with my supervisors, is to help that person's behaviours fit into my organization, or help the person find another job. The same principles apply in Rugby League, which is why we have integrity units, standards of behavior, etc. Clubs don't need crystal balls, they need an NRL hierarchy willing to work with them, to address issues, as and when they arise. If Todd and co want anything more than that, perhaps they should take over the integrity checks for all NRL employees, players and administrators. That would never happen because they'd get so bogged down with these checks, we'd never see a game of footy.
Ben
Roar Guru
I think the NRL are playing the Scott Bolton card on it's merit. He'd pleaded guilty to touching a woman's thigh after all. Napa on the other hand. Seriously, why should he receive any punishment at all, when it was the person filming him that lacked values.
Molly’s Hatchet
Guest
Wow ! Another NRL bashing article on the Roar , by no other than , Joe Frost. I doubt this stooge has ever written anything constructive about the game. And he has the audacity to waffle on about “fit n proper”.
The Barry
Roar Guru
It’s an absolute lucky dip how off field behaviour is managed by HQ. Some players get the book thrown at them, others get references from the CEO. Relatively mild anti social behaviour caught on video is met with swift and harsh punishment. Illegal, violent behaviour is swept under the carpet as quickly as possible. Why is Greenberg talking suspension for Napa while not mentioning Scott Bolton who has just plead guilty to assaulting a woman? If the NRL wants to set the standard and say Napa’s behaviour doesn’t align with the game’s values, then fine. I’ll back them even if it costs my club. But the NRL picks and chooses what it cracks down on. Can’t wait for the footy to start...all this nonsense is a massive turnoff...
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
The Sharks won their only title in 2016 and I can recall some pretty dubious characters playing the leading roles. Flanno was coach, Gallen passed to Barba for the first try and Fifita scored the match winner. Even if a club thinks someone is a little bit wobbly in character it's a pretty big call not to sign them if they're what's needed to win a title.