Tweet
You can be made to look very foolish by making statements without knowing all the facts.
Unfortunately over the last week it seems to me that some of our game's highest-profile players have walked a fine line in this regard. Conjecture over possible strike action has raised its ugly head, and it has not been a good look.
On the weekend, Australian vice-captain Cameron Smith said that if disgruntled players continued to be ignored then strike action could not be ruled out. At least he included the words "last resort" and an understanding that such a course of action "hurts the game and the fans".
Since then the likes of Willie Mason and Johnathan Thurston have lent their support and expressed a one-in, all-in mentality.
In relation to Cameron, it was not made clear whether his initial comments about any strike were off his own bat or as a response to a question along those lines.
It is a very different situation to raise the possibility than to respond to somebody else introducing the prospect.
The problem is that by even saying that something is an option gives the story a heartbeat and it takes on a life all of its own. I'm hoping that this was the case on this occasion.
But the bottom line is that any talk at all about a strike is dangerous and divisive.
What has been particularly disturbing is that comments made by not only Smith, Mason and Thurston but by Jarryd Hayne and Petero Civoniceva were not supported by any factual evidence to define their case.
It's not good enough to say that players aren't getting paid enough or that not enough is being done to stop players leaving our game.
No solutions were put forward and no mention was made as to where the extra money to be paid was going to come from.
NRL chief executive David Gallop has said all along that the books are open and that the revenue the game raises is there to be seen.
Furthermore, how that money is distributed within the game is completely transparent.
I wonder how many players have actually taken the time to go and look at this distribution and how the money "pie" is divided? I think we all know the answer to that one.
Surely this is the time for the Rugby League Players Association to step up and take the lead when it comes to its members' grievances.
The boss is David Garnsey, who I have to say carries a very low profile which at the moment may not be in his best interests.
Instead of players venting themselves in the media, I would have thought that this was the time to get all RLPA members in for discussions and to most importantly explain the financial side of proceedings.
Then instead of damaging "strike" talk being bandied about, a real strategy as to how to proceed could be determined.
The problem for Garnsey is that for the duration of the association's existence, players have been apathetic. I know I was, and unless I'm completely wide of the mark I don't think much has changed over the years.
I can't speak with certainty, but as an outsider it appeared that past bosses Matt Rodwell and Tony Butterfield were often frustrated by a lack of real support.
If the players are serious about improving their lot then this must change, and they must also be prepared to do their own homework.
Again I ask how many of them have any idea of what is contained in the new proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement? It is much easier to make informed comment with such knowledge of things that are actual determinations of how your workplace is to be arranged.
Don't get me wrong, I believe the players have genuine gripes, they are just going about it in the wrong fashion. In fact it is imperative that something positive concerning the salary cap comes out of the Melbourne Storm debacle.
Fortunately some well-balanced words of care and caution have been put forward by Brett Kimmorley and Steve Price, who expressed the need for their peers to take on more responsibility in what statements they make.
What also put some perspective on things were comments made by Joyce Churchill, the widow of the legendary "Little Master" Clive Churchill. She pointed out that her husband believed that what a footballer earns "is based on the amount of money he helps to draw through the turnstiles".
Obviously times have changed, but when you consider the average crowds for rugby league games it's a good thing that players aren't relying on attendances to establish their wages.
Which brings me to the subject of the next television rights, to be negotiated for the 2013 season and beyond. It seems to me that a lot of eggs are being put into the one basket with this new deal seemingly the saving grace for all of the problems facing the game.
There seems to be this attitude that all will be well when this huge rush of money comes in.
I sincerely hope this is the case and that the media organisations involved will be in the position at that time to inject the kind of figures that are being talked up.
With negotiations not even under way, there seems to be an over abundance of certainty in what is still an uncertain outcome.
But the immediate concern is the word strike being used in association with our game.
God forbid that things could degenerate to such a degree that this could ever be close to becoming a reality.
Unfortunately over the last week it seems to me that some of our game's highest-profile players have walked a fine line in this regard. Conjecture over possible strike action has raised its ugly head, and it has not been a good look.
On the weekend, Australian vice-captain Cameron Smith said that if disgruntled players continued to be ignored then strike action could not be ruled out. At least he included the words "last resort" and an understanding that such a course of action "hurts the game and the fans".
Since then the likes of Willie Mason and Johnathan Thurston have lent their support and expressed a one-in, all-in mentality.
In relation to Cameron, it was not made clear whether his initial comments about any strike were off his own bat or as a response to a question along those lines.
It is a very different situation to raise the possibility than to respond to somebody else introducing the prospect.
The problem is that by even saying that something is an option gives the story a heartbeat and it takes on a life all of its own. I'm hoping that this was the case on this occasion.
But the bottom line is that any talk at all about a strike is dangerous and divisive.
What has been particularly disturbing is that comments made by not only Smith, Mason and Thurston but by Jarryd Hayne and Petero Civoniceva were not supported by any factual evidence to define their case.
It's not good enough to say that players aren't getting paid enough or that not enough is being done to stop players leaving our game.
No solutions were put forward and no mention was made as to where the extra money to be paid was going to come from.
NRL chief executive David Gallop has said all along that the books are open and that the revenue the game raises is there to be seen.
Furthermore, how that money is distributed within the game is completely transparent.
I wonder how many players have actually taken the time to go and look at this distribution and how the money "pie" is divided? I think we all know the answer to that one.
Surely this is the time for the Rugby League Players Association to step up and take the lead when it comes to its members' grievances.
The boss is David Garnsey, who I have to say carries a very low profile which at the moment may not be in his best interests.
Instead of players venting themselves in the media, I would have thought that this was the time to get all RLPA members in for discussions and to most importantly explain the financial side of proceedings.
Then instead of damaging "strike" talk being bandied about, a real strategy as to how to proceed could be determined.
The problem for Garnsey is that for the duration of the association's existence, players have been apathetic. I know I was, and unless I'm completely wide of the mark I don't think much has changed over the years.
I can't speak with certainty, but as an outsider it appeared that past bosses Matt Rodwell and Tony Butterfield were often frustrated by a lack of real support.
If the players are serious about improving their lot then this must change, and they must also be prepared to do their own homework.
Again I ask how many of them have any idea of what is contained in the new proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement? It is much easier to make informed comment with such knowledge of things that are actual determinations of how your workplace is to be arranged.
Don't get me wrong, I believe the players have genuine gripes, they are just going about it in the wrong fashion. In fact it is imperative that something positive concerning the salary cap comes out of the Melbourne Storm debacle.
Fortunately some well-balanced words of care and caution have been put forward by Brett Kimmorley and Steve Price, who expressed the need for their peers to take on more responsibility in what statements they make.
What also put some perspective on things were comments made by Joyce Churchill, the widow of the legendary "Little Master" Clive Churchill. She pointed out that her husband believed that what a footballer earns "is based on the amount of money he helps to draw through the turnstiles".
Obviously times have changed, but when you consider the average crowds for rugby league games it's a good thing that players aren't relying on attendances to establish their wages.
Which brings me to the subject of the next television rights, to be negotiated for the 2013 season and beyond. It seems to me that a lot of eggs are being put into the one basket with this new deal seemingly the saving grace for all of the problems facing the game.
There seems to be this attitude that all will be well when this huge rush of money comes in.
I sincerely hope this is the case and that the media organisations involved will be in the position at that time to inject the kind of figures that are being talked up.
With negotiations not even under way, there seems to be an over abundance of certainty in what is still an uncertain outcome.
But the immediate concern is the word strike being used in association with our game.
God forbid that things could degenerate to such a degree that this could ever be close to becoming a reality.
Comment