The Roar
The Roar

Keith (no longer) of WA

Roar Rookie

Joined October 2018

26.7k

Views

5

Published

40

Comments

Published

Comments

Not being in Australia anymore brought home to me the availability of games to watch on a medium other than Foxtel. Was I going to retain my subscription of $100 ish per month to enable watching a game on an online device such as a computer/iphone via Foxtel Go… plus data charges?

Short answer was no….

Then came the issue that the time zone I’m in meant the games are on at midnight or 1am….

When I had a think about my subscription, the truth was that I rarely watched a Super Rugby game unless it was a NZ team (particularly the Crusaders) and more so if a NZ v NZ game as the quality of play/intensity/skill level is far and away above the dross served up by Australian sides.

The Australian sides often appear to just be going through the motions, but that is another issue. watch a back to back of Aussie sides and NZ sides though and it was apparent that the Australian game standard is either so devoid of skill or they are playing a rote learned method of play…. either way I can see games with more suspense and heart at my local club rugby, and dare I say it, more connection.

In truth, the current issues IMHO reflects Foxtel both playing hardball and a sober assessment that people like me don’t rate our own teams and won’t often sit down to watch.

They know.

They should be able to tell when a subscriber is watching a game live…. has it recorded or isn’t even bothered. Sure, there’s your hard core rugby supporter…. but is it worth ‘record’ millions each round of negotiation?

Due to time difference, and as I’m having to watch it through a device anyway, I watch a replay online…. which is where the Optus and Kayo world live at a far cheaper rate than Foxtel….

So I’ve moved on from Foxtel…

RA turn to Optus for TV deal

TWAS… You still miss the point….
If they had simply said “his views don’t reflect ours” and “he is entitled to his views” without deciding to become (like a lot of comments here) the judge and jury on whether his comments are right or wrong in an area where wars have been fought, then NOTHING would have had to have been paid out as a settlement.
You, like many others here are outraged at his point of view and want him smacked down (crushed) so that he conforms to your view of what is right or wrong. I don’t agree with your point of view at all, but in truth you’ve got every right to have that opinion and broadcast it on social media as you’ve done so again… I’ve no problem with it.
It really is a costly attempt at political correctness over common sense…. and for mine Castle has just shown very poor judgement in doing it…

Rugby AU and Israel Folau settle legal dispute

It’s all going straight to his cult
regardless of whether you agree with him or not, many of us donated to ensure he had a chance for a fair hearing in court…not because we agreed but because ANY person is entitled to a fair hearing….
The fact that it settled is totally fine by me….. and you know what? ACL are refunding the donations because that’s the RIGHT thing to do….
How does that egg feel on your face?

Rugby AU and Israel Folau settle legal dispute

There was a part 2 to the above…. along the lines of the fact that I was going to watch with amusement as a certain someone increased their post count massively whilst defending everything RA….. but it got deleted….

Foxtel withdraws offer for Rugby broadcast rights, Optus move looms

Hmmm.

Well a couple of things stand out straight way.
1.
If the current board has it’s eye on the ball they would be prepared for this announcement given the previous statements by Foxtel and their (Foxtels) financial position ie it should not be a surprise.
If the current board has it’s eye on the ball then they would have recognized long ago the FTA is the key to bums on seats / awareness at grass roots, been in negotiations with other parties and laid out both their solutions to current ills and future strategies.

If the current board has it’s eye on the ball then we will have an announcement fairly soon of a new FTA /alternative rights arrangement showing that Foxtel got in first to give RA a black eye….

ORRRR…….

If the board DOESN’T have their eye on the ball then there will be/have been a quick emergency meeting ring around/board meeting and RC armed with a bland statement that a formal rights offer will happen at an appropriate time (after we figure it out)…

If the board DOESN’T have it’s eye on the ball they will now go with their tail between their legs to rights negotiations after people like Dick Marks, Nick Farr-Jones have pointed out that it’s a bit ordinary at board level

But seriously…. the next few days will cause the board to either implode or come out with a few announcements that have some thought behind it….

Stay tuned…

Foxtel withdraws offer for Rugby broadcast rights, Optus move looms

The slate has never been cleaner. The new era begins now.
I agree Brett. It’s been years since I even watched a Wallabies game let alone traveled all over the world to attend games in protest and dismay at the mindlessness presided over by MC et al.
For mine, the simple fact that Dave Rennie has made his decision to throw his lot in as coach of Australia BEFORE the All Blacks coaching selection has run it’s race speaks volumes about his commitment (regardless of his odds of success in becoming and AB’s coach) to the Wallabies.
That should be more than obvious to the Greg Martins of the world.
I like the fact that one of his key strong points appears to be building the right team culture. We certainly need it. Nowhere in any of the reports about him have I read about favorites being selected over others without merit, or golf club gimmicks, or ranting about referree’s etc. I’m sure they might be around but enough people have stood up to back the man that I’m certainly looking forward to next year with anticipation for a change.
I’m not worried about instant success. I’d be more than happy if some of the entitled ones are weeded out and the young players are brought through under his watch. If that means we cop an inevitable flogging during that process then that’s more than ok with me.
I think all Aussie’s will support him if there is genuine reform happening. I don’t have any issue at all with him being a Kiwi. If he’s the best man for the job then (like England) you just employ him and get in behind and push.
The reality of Australia is that we don’t have coaches of his calibre at present. There is no better way IMO to rectify this than employing the right man and surrounding him with the best Australian assistants possible. It appears to be what Johnson (and others?) is trying to do.
The fact that they are apparently all mates could be both a good and bad thing, although time will tell. If it’s jobs for the boys (and management company) it will be found out. If it’s a bunch of people all on the same page and excellent at what they do then it’s a united effort, which will stand them in good stead for the tough times and should bring success.
So, I’ll state at the outset…. I have no issue with him being a Kiwi, am liking a lot of what is being said about who he his and how he goes about things and the structure being set up.
With Clyne going, I’m going to have to stop watching NFL and start following the Wallabies again.

Clean slate: Rennie appointment starts a new era for Australian rugby

No one’s ever doubted his work rate… just his proximity to the ruck….

Wallabies beat All Blacks after dominant second half in Bledisloe 1

Nah.. Savea and Franks were doing high tackles on him in the first half and got away with a penalty… sooner or later you do the crime you gotta do the time….

Wallabies beat All Blacks after dominant second half in Bledisloe 1

It was noticeable how much slower Genia was in distributing from the ruck… and then box kicked for no reason!!!

Wallabies beat All Blacks after dominant second half in Bledisloe 1

If Beale had hung on then it’s a head high tackle around the neck, a red card, few weeks on the side line and a penalty try no doubt…

Kurtley Beale's poor defensive effort cannot stop the Jaguares from pouncing

interesting that you ignore the thrust of my post completely, and choose to address the who is/who isn’t saying what…
“Only a handful of people have called for Folau to be sacked” and “Who indeed says Folaus regurgitation of religious dogma has no place in society?”
Have a look at the headline alone on the roar Editors’ article…. then read the first para….
I think you’ll find it’s out there loud and proud….
Outrage mob?… that’s a straw man argument… I said they assume there MUST be a clause in the contract… and justify themselves accordingly….
Again, it follows that if there isn’t, it does indeed become a larger problem than your ‘cliche’ handbook allows….

Folau to fight Rugby Australia on sacking after meeting RUPA boss

I suspect not many people will like this, but the inescapable reality here is that this is a massive (and in many cases uninformed) pile on to someone who has expressed his religious views.

There does not appear to be any public confirmation of a clause in Folau’s contract dealing with his religious beliefs or restrictions to social media by RA so far. If there was such a clause, it would make sense that RA would be trumpeting his breach of contract as their justification.

Alternatively, and if there isn’t, Houston we have a problem.

RA have come out hard from the outset in order to appear firm to (Qantas? and) the public, and show they don’t condone his views. It’s fair enough to signal that the views expressed do not reflect the views of management. Newspapers and movies do it all of the time.

Where RA have an issue is that they’ve ignored process and contractual law and placed their position on record of their intent to sack. If there is a clause, is it legal?

If there isn’t then threatening to sack a player because of their religious views instead of simply stating that the players views do not reflect the governing bodies means Fort Fumble could be in a world of hurt. If there is no clause, then it’s going to be a drawn out fight as you can’t sack someone based on their religion, although it wouldn’t be the first time RA have lept before looking….

That hasn’t stopped the outrage mob on here assuming that there MUST be such a clause and enthusiastically taking up the sack (lynch) him cry group think because he breached it.

You cannot weaponize the threat of terminating someones employment because of their religious views. That’s authoritarianism. Whether you agree with his views or not or not doesn’t entitle you to censor them because they might be hurtful.

And who says his views have no place in society at all? The editor here? That’s an attempt to censor.

If Rugby Union wants to be inclusive, then you’ve got to include all views, not just those that match your own

Folau to fight Rugby Australia on sacking after meeting RUPA boss

Fionn,

“Which isn’t true, when you add” … my contention in my original post is that you did only portray one side and is summed up right there….

The fact that you then go on to do the very thing I suggested ie placing it into context does not resile from my original post that there is more to the story. Had I not done so, perhaps you might not have ever “add in the additional context”

Regarding your last comment, I actually disagree with you. Re-read your original post. Without context and background your post does read as linking the Crusaders name with millions of people dying….

Stop crusading against the Crusaders

Fionn… I’ve never said your post was contentious. I’ve merely stated that it is only portraying part of the story and therefore is out of context. I’m happy for you to point out where in your original post you portrayed the reason the Crusades started or anything to do with placing the Crusades into ‘context’…. Otherwise I think you’ll find my point stands.

“What’s the modern context of interpreting the Crusades?

Oh, that’s right, the modern context is interpreting it as a Christian holy war war from Western Europe against the Muslim Empire, resulting in millions of people dying, most being Muslims, and many being civilians…”

As an aside, if anyone takes the time to research and read a little of the history of the Crusades it will show there are plenty of atrocities from both ‘sides’ and a surprising amount of willingness to coexist in some cases.

Does one ‘side’ have any more right to grievance than the other? Does that mean the Crusaders should change their name?

There were plenty of (non european) examples of Muslims and Crusaders (Christians) co-existing between wars and I don’t see why that cannot happen now.

If the Crusaders decide to change their name as a further act of empathy and co-existence then bravo and I applaud their spirit. On the other hand, I don’t believe that they should be shamed/pushed into doing so.

Stop crusading against the Crusaders

Personally, not having been there during the crusades or the events prior I can no more vouch for the truth of historical records than you can, but getting into an argument about historical fact doesn’t change the basis of my point.

When you only portray one part of an event without the whole it is a selective context.

Stop crusading against the Crusaders

Well the simple answer is that the Crusades were the response to millions of people dying at the hands of the Muslims (as opposed to ‘aggression’) and to a request for help.

State it like that, then you have one context.

State it like a Christian holy war war from Western Europe against the Muslim Empire, resulting in millions of people dying, most being Muslims then you have another context.

Mentioning one without the other is simply taking it out of context.

Stop crusading against the Crusaders

Anything can be taken out of context….

You might like to dig a little deeper into WHY the Crusades happened and what they were in response to.

Stop crusading against the Crusaders

1. lol (yeah I’m having a chuckle at you) what… you think you can run around having a crack at someone then you’re genuinely bewildered when they come straight back at you?
2. frazzled? clearly reading isn’t your strong point. I get alerts that some numpty has commented… I told you that…
3. Keithy isn’t offensive to me… it just shows the extent and the intelligence of your repartee
4. really? oh you’re very very good….
5. No, I simply summed you up as a hanky wringer with a limited world view. I can only do this based on the drivel you keep producing
6. Playing YOUR game… and giving it straight back to you

Sunwolves reportedly axed from Super Rugby

errr…. no, just pointing out that you played the man and not the ball…. couldn’t be any clearer… or should I use smaller words for you?

Sunwolves reportedly axed from Super Rugby

lol (yes, that’s old timey still laughing at you)…. no, there isn’t any law against commenting on the politics of a decision… even self appointed moral police like you can’t stop that…

I don’t claim to have any moral superiority. I’m really amused that you’ve had it spelt out but still don’t get it/baffled….

I gave you 3 options sunshine…. and I’m gonna enjoy this….

Sunwolves reportedly axed from Super Rugby

John, I’m going to take time out and spell out a few things for you… … I’ve come onto The Roar and made a comment about an issue. I’ve not attacked any poster here yet you’ve seen fit to have a crack at me. You’ve clearly played the man and not the ball with no justification whatsoever. You’ve not made a constructive observation at any point about the issue and have simply engaged in low brow insults for no reason whatsoever. Now, not knowing if you’re young and dumb, or just dumb, I’ve initially given you the benefit of the doubt and asked what issue you have with my commenting. Being inexperienced, you’ve ignored the caution and plunged on with a seriously inane justification and further insults in response. So I’ve pegged you as just dumb. Your whole stated reason for having a crack at me in your response is that you’re annoyed and you think I’m seeking attention, because I claimed to have no interest. Well, I didn’t claim that, you know that and I pointed that out to you. I also pointed out that I was quite within my rights to come on here and make a comment.

Your problem now is that you’ve started something you don’t know how to finish because you’ve played the man and are getting it straight back.

Now here I’m going to go out on a limb. You’ve mentioned I haunt the pages like a miserable ghost, so I’m betting you’re quoting Malcolm Turnbull (or Krudd?) and think it’s a cool insult. It shows a limited world view. Your whole reason for having a crack at me is because you’re annoyed I’ve expressed an opinion. That tells me you’re someone with an inflated sense of entitlement and loves to express his outrage at someone who doesn’t conform to your views. Then you’ve called me pathetic for checking responses when we both know that I, like you get alerts when someone has responded on The Roar. Wrong again.

As far as the Mods deleting my response about you being miserable, well I accept that calling you miserable was possibly confronting and might have hurt your feelings.. perhaps the Mods could look at your whole approach… but I digress..

I keep (and will continue to) responding because I’m very entertained by your predicament and I continue to laugh at you…. You’ve got nowhere to go other than continue to look like an idi@t or apologize.

In the absence of ANY reasoned argument about the issue, you’ve resorted to calling me ‘Keithy’. Now while I’m out on that bet, I’m going to assume that you really have very little life experience and beyond (Uni?) group hugs and love ins, haven’t had the exposure to anything harder than school ground taunts because you work in an ‘inclusive’ environment…. and anything else is ‘old timey’…

Well sunshine, out in the big bad world we call people like you hanky wringers. Hanky wringers don’t get it. They pontificate, insult and moralize but don’t realize that (in your case) their original reason for getting annoyed/outraged and the whole thread of insults is neither appropriate or correct. I didn’t claim to have “no interest” and I’m entitled to have a say.

So, you have three choices. 1. you can man up and apologize for playing the man and not the ball with your insults and move on, 2. you can quietly disappear from this thread without further response, or 3. you can continue entertaining me with the responses and I will continue to mock you .

Over to you….

Sunwolves reportedly axed from Super Rugby

well I thought lol was ok because I’m still having a laugh at you and your banal manner (you can look that one up if you like)

aaah evolution… is that what you are? evolved? from what?

Sunwolves reportedly axed from Super Rugby

lol… ok… is calling you a hanky wringer better?

Sunwolves reportedly axed from Super Rugby

lol, I’m glad you saw it then… sums you up
and hey sunshine… you really ought to come up with some better stuff than “keithy” if you’re gonna call other people pathetic

Sunwolves reportedly axed from Super Rugby

lol… I’m quite entitled to come on here, and if that annoys you well then you need to get out more… never claimed to have no interest, just don’t watch it…. read it again sunshine…

Sunwolves reportedly axed from Super Rugby