Re: NRL Fantasy 2022 - Part 66 - Couch Party

BCT05 wrote:Would you rather get Teddy or Haas if you could only get one?

Have same decision and going Ted.

Liverpool_Bulldog wrote:
Teddy I think

rhinoceroo wrote:

Have same decision and going Ted.

Hmm yeah that's what my gut says too but when you look at the averages you'd expect Haas to score you more points over the rest of the season.Teddy just more exciting and could go massive any week

My aim is both.

Is Butcher almost a must have at mid 500's for the run home if he get's the 80 min edge role?

bigbruno wrote:Is Butcher almost a must have at mid 500's for the run home if he get's the 80 min edge role?

A must have over Ted, Haas, Murray? If you can't afford those guys then he looks like a genuine underpriced keeper.

rhinoceroo wrote:Fox reporting three of the rebel Sea Eagles (unnamed) poised to "backflip" and put on the shirt.

If you are suggesting that its possible this was overblown by the media, then I am totally shocked.

robelgordo wrote:

What if my beliefs are against war/military, can a player not wear the ANZAC jersey? You know the people all about personal choice and beliefs would be up in arms then. NOT THAT CHOICE!

It’s just bigotry and culture wars nonsense this.

Can’t be racist or sexist anymore so let’s try for some homophobia.

I remember an Irish player in the Premier League refused to wear the rememberance poppy because it supports the British soldiers that killed his countrymen. He got abused and had death threats - I'm sure it would be the same here.

Milchcow wrote:

If you are suggesting that its possible this was overblown by the media, then I am totally shocked.

Chammas at the SMH is usually ok and not prone to Fox hyperbole.

My guess is that Manly supporter reaction and the implications for their future employment might have focused a couple of minds that a bit of coloured polyester isn't that important after all.

Rabbits21 wrote:They should’ve known better Manly in the first place tbh it’s why no other NRL club went with this kinda thing.

I back the 7 Manly players that’s their religion and beliefs I respect that and they have a right to stand by that, their personal choice you can’t take that away from them! It’s a very very sensitive and touchy subject.

Whilst I’m gutted from a Manly fan perspective, I’m with Rabs here.
Not being religious I don’t understand how it all works, but I think the calls saying they’re bigots and homophobes etc are very uninformed.
In no way am I condoning an anti-gay stance and I don’t believe the players are either.

Wasn’t Joseph Suaalli permitted to wear a Roosters jersey different to the other players a year or two ago?
For the NRL to say they all have to wear the same jersey reeks of double standards.

rhinoceroo wrote:

Chammas at the SMH is usually ok and not prone to Fox hyperbole.

My guess is that Manly supporter reaction and the implications for their future employment might have focused a couple of minds that a bit of coloured polyester isn't that important after all.

There was something yesterday (can't remember the source) that 3-4 won't play before it broke as 7.

So perhaps it was always that the 7 objected but only 3-4 were going to take a stand.

Rabbits21 wrote:I back the 7 Manly players that’s their religion and beliefs I respect that and they have a right to stand by that, their personal choice you can’t take that away from them! It’s a very very sensitive and touchy subject.

Nah. Fuck that. its not sensitive at all. To take this kind of stand in 2022 amounts to being a homophobe. The little strip of rainbow on a jersey represents.. love for all. That's it. People suddenly get very religious when it suits them.

wolfking wrote:

A must have over Ted, Haas, Murray?  If you can't afford those guys then he looks like a genuine underpriced keeper.

Haas is in this week for Moses.

Just thinking about getting rid of Koula for butcher and running risk of no ctr cover

Chucky wrote:
Whilst I’m gutted from a Manly fan perspective, I’m with Rabs here.
Not being religious I don’t understand how it all works, but I think the calls saying they’re bigots and homophobes etc are very uninformed.
In no way am I condoning an anti-gay stance and I don’t believe the players are either.

Wasn’t Joseph Suaalli permitted to wear a Roosters jersey different to the other players a year or two ago?
For the NRL to say they all have to wear the same jersey reeks of double standards.

What are they condoning though?

Nobody else has explained it beyond "personal/religious belief" and I find it hard to come to any position where the belief isn't "I don't like the gays"

I think the Suallii thing was he was under 18 so promoting a gambling sponsor on a jersey was even more icky than usual.

Chucky wrote:
Whilst I’m gutted from a Manly fan perspective, I’m with Rabs here.
Not being religious I don’t understand how it all works, but I think the calls saying they’re bigots and homophobes etc are very uninformed.
In no way am I condoning an anti-gay stance and I don’t believe the players are either.

Wasn’t Joseph Suaalli permitted to wear a Roosters jersey different to the other players a year or two ago?
For the NRL to say they all have to wear the same jersey reeks of double standards.

I'm not sure the NRL have said that? From what I can see it's a Manly initiative and they've said the players will be unavailable without any input from the NRL?

Don't see what else they can do, really. Would be terrible optics and undermine the message they were going for if half the team wore the jersey and half didn't, once they've committed to this then they have to have 17 running out in it. This is going to be the only global NRL story of the year and it's bad enough already, half and half would just make it worse.

I'm sure we'll just give any remaining holdouts a free Sportsbet voucher and they can just forget about it and put the jersey on.

robelgordo wrote:

What are they condoning though?

Nobody else has explained it beyond "personal/religious belief" and I find it hard to come to any position where the belief isn't "I don't like the gays"

I think the Suallii thing was he was under 18 so promoting a gambling sponsor on a jersey was even more icky than usual.

I get this, but now they’re saying they can’t make an exception and they all have to wear the same jersey.
I would’ve thought this issue was even more sensitive.

I don’t know what they’re condoning, like I said, I don’t understand it.
One thing I’ve learnt is that you never know someone else’s circumstances so to make a judgement without knowing all the facts often results in an incorrect conclusion.

rhinoceroo wrote:This is going to be the only global NRL story of the year and it's bad enough already, half and half would just make it worse.

It is a massive dent in an already bad reputation. Its the kind of story that has a big impact on casual/fringe observers who were ~maybe going to start getting into league. I know a lot of people who won't watch league because of its reputation. The only takeaway from people outside of the game here is "NRL not only caters to domestic abusers and wife beaters, but now homophobes too"

I'm not religious at all, and seeing players take a stand like this over equality because of their religion makes me happy I'm not religious.  It's astounding a religion dictates this kind of thing, but again I don't know how it all works, but people need to fucking look at things for what it is.  Religion or not, it's fucking disgraceful.  We all come in the same way, and we eventually end up the same.  At the end of the day, isn't everyone free to choose what they choose?  What does it matter if John down the road is gay, good luck to him, he's probably living a happier life than these 7 jokers anyway, at least he's true to himself and not living behind a false religion dictating what he can and can't do.  Let everyone be what they want to be, for fucks sake.

Thinking back to when we had the Marvel jerseys. Would have been great if a couple of players had refused to wear a Thor jersey because of they didn't want to show praise to any other god.

Rabbits21 wrote:They should’ve known better Manly in the first place tbh it’s why no other NRL club went with this kinda thing.

I back the 7 Manly players that’s their religion and beliefs I respect that and they have a right to stand by that, their personal choice you can’t take that away from them! It’s a very very sensitive and touchy subject.

Yeah….nah

While I agree Manly shouldn’t have sprung it on them, if that is what happened, I definitely call bullshit on the old ‘religious beliefs’ chestnut. Theologically speaking it’s always interesting that most ‘Christian’s’ tend to pull out some fire and brimstone old testament quote to justify their stance when Christianity is about following the teachings of Christ (ie New Testemant). On the whole the baby Jesus was all about tolerance and inclusivity. It’s pretty piss weak to cherry pick religious beliefs to justify intolerance because you are personally uncomfortable with something.

I don’t see many of these guys quoting the bible when their clubs are sponsored by gambling companies or when their teammates are caught cheating on or assaulting their spouses or just generally acting like a prick.

Citing religious beliefs is the opposite of personal choice it’s actually outsourcing your personal choice.