Re: Bulls Takeover : Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:17 pm
DILLIGAF wrote:
I'm not so sure where I fall on this. Whilst I agree that on the face of it a massive blunder has been made by the RFL in picking this particular chairman, I'm not sure how much blame falls at their feet for what's happened. How much can you really know about a person before they perform the act? Sure there were some warning signs there, but presumably there were also some indications that they may do something right, otherwise why would they possibly have gone down that route in the first place.
It kind of reminds me of a situation a few years back when an ex work colleague of mine died. Whilst looking up funeral proceedings on the internet, we discovered that actually he had a past before we worked with him that made him very much not a nice man. Without going into detail of what he did, it was bad enough that he only escaped jail time because he appeared to be terminal at the time (he ended up at least temporarily beating that diagnosis). I worked with him for years never knowing about the past and before it was discovered, I would have swore blind he was a lovely chap. Since presumably his past wasn't known about when he was hired, should the people that hired him be lambasted for doing so, even though they clearly didn't know what he was? I don't think they should.
Different situation I know, but when people are saying the RFL should take the blame, it just reminds me of that event. Which is why I'm not sure where my opinion sits on it.
It kind of reminds me of a situation a few years back when an ex work colleague of mine died. Whilst looking up funeral proceedings on the internet, we discovered that actually he had a past before we worked with him that made him very much not a nice man. Without going into detail of what he did, it was bad enough that he only escaped jail time because he appeared to be terminal at the time (he ended up at least temporarily beating that diagnosis). I worked with him for years never knowing about the past and before it was discovered, I would have swore blind he was a lovely chap. Since presumably his past wasn't known about when he was hired, should the people that hired him be lambasted for doing so, even though they clearly didn't know what he was? I don't think they should.
Different situation I know, but when people are saying the RFL should take the blame, it just reminds me of that event. Which is why I'm not sure where my opinion sits on it.
On a one off situation you are correct. But when the should have been policing salary cap breaches we carried out, agreeing to register Harris as a player which was subsequently found out to be illegal, Hood's massive overspend, followed by fit and proper person checks on Greene (twice?) and Chalmers then they would seem a little inept. They have given rise to a new saying however. "Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, shame on me. Fool me four times, shame on me again ad nauseum"