I'm not sure why so many are angry about SKD, was found not guilty. On this basis you can say dont sign someone becasue they have been accused in the past! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Peris.html

I'm not sure why so many are angry about SKD, was found not guilty. On this basis you can say dont sign someone becasue they have been accused in the past! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Peris.html

lol

Every SL club signs players from the NRL who are past their prime.

Reality check. SL cannot compete financially anymore to sign players from the NRL in their prime.

So you're suggesting the Folau signing is ok, but the Zak one isn't?

Well what's the chances the rules are never revealed to the public.

Interestingly Robert Elstone has an interview broadcast on inside super League tonight. From the tidbits I seen he confirms while all clubs are against what falou said. Not all clubs were against Catalan being allowed to sign him.

If you read his post properly you will see he isn't suggesting anything, you on the other hand are.

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking what will be deemed a controversial signing and what won't. Will players that have broken the law be deemed controversial?

"controversial
giving rise or likely to give rise to controversy or public disagreement."

Most likely then.

You compared two players, one with outspoken views the other with multiple convictions for assault, you tell me which is the most controversial.

Going off that definition, someone moving between Wigan and St Helens ala Gary Connolly wouldn't be allowed either.

I detest religious bigotry but I would also defend a person's right to say what they think regardless of whether it offends people or not. We are entering dangerous territory if somebody can be stopped from entering SL because they hold an unfavourable opinion. How do you define controversial? Who decides if a player is controversial enough to hold a vote on? What gives SL bosses the right to decide what the collective SL watching community thinks is unacceptable? The result of any vote would depend on the personal views of each person voting, making it subjective. Elstone says "As a sport, we have an impressive and enviable track record when it comes to equality, diversity and inclusion and we will continue our great work in those areas." Diversity of what though? Does diversity of opinion not count? You have to take these things to their logical conclusion.

I think we should all take a vote on whether IF should or should not be allowed to play in SL, the winners can then take the moral high ground or low ground depending on your views and then the admin can lock the thread once and for all.

He is right, we do have a track record for inclusion. We welcome drug cheats, recreational drug users, people who like to knock their missus about and alcohol abusers with open arms.

I asked a question. Hudds1895 then compared the misdemeanours of the several players I mentioned who have a negative history and IF stating that he hasn't broken the law. That would lead me to believe he doesn't see the signing as controversial as that of a possible convicted criminal.

The question I am asking (as are many others) is simply, who decides what is controversial and what isn't.

If you are welcoming people of different race, creed, colour, gay etc, you cannot then welcome people who OPENLY oppose those groups.
You cannot claim to be "diverse" is you employ people who openly hate certain groups within your group of employees.

Everyone is entitled to THINK whatever they wish. However, when those views become publicised and against your stated objectives (diversity, inclusivity etc), as an employer (or governing body) you would be opening yourself up to all sorts of claims. It's not rocket science, it's common bloody sense.

My old boss used to say, "what you get up to in your own time, is your business", which is still the case.

If players posted images of themselves with Nazi flags or kicking the out of someone, they would be, quite rightly held to account.
Equally, they could do these things privately and assuming they weren't reported or caught in the act, nothing would happen.

There is a significant grey area with religion and UK law, as many religions have issues which are against the law of the land but, these do seem to be allowed to carry on "on religious grounds". Which one should prevail ? the law or, personal belief ??

Ultimately, people should not be condemned for their beliefs, however, when their belief flies against what is accepted within the law, everyone needs to tread carefully.

Personally, I'm a little surprised that more hasn't been made of IF's comment about the bushfires being punishment for gay sex and marriage.
Which for me is a comment from medieval times.

Just to confirm my opinion on it, I don't think he should have been allowed to sign. If a fan shouting abuse like that at Keegan Hirst say then he would be banned from most grounds for life.

The problem now, as I've said, is what is considered to be a controversial signing and what isn't?