sorry eZyT - I couldn’t disagree more.
I think the players are entitled to work out what is important to them and then to make decisions accordingly.
Personally, from my perspective, family and health and wellbeing are far more important than work, and if thats what Cotch is saying then I applaud. If that means some of them don’t participate in hubs then I think that is not the easy option for them to make, but much harder decision imo, to stand up to those in power because of what you believe.
Go Cotch.
Look I am not enjoying footy at the moment and I don’t want to see our tigers travel to a hub and then play miserably like the weagles - that would be just to hard to watch.
If it comes to hubs, and the tigers can get 25 or 30 players to put their hand up then that’s great, if not, then we move on to next season.
Each to their own but if this season has taught me one thing, there is more to life than footy (did I say that).
No need to apologize for a different POV
Yott,
And i agree family is everything.
But familys gotta eat.
Sherpas do 3 months away from a dozen kids for 6pounds of yak butter.
Players expecting babies aside (although if bakes could skip qtine for death, surely birth qualifies),
I think a bloke who cant do a month away for $100k is
1. Exceedingly soft
2. Exceedingly selfish (its a team sport/band of bros)
3. Has an attachment disorder with the kids, or
4. Has a negative codependency with the misses.
Potentially all four (ive known these blokes, though they were *smile* footy players)
Any bloke downing tools needs to understand that huge cultural crevices will result.
And yeah it hasnt happened yet, it maybe an ambit claim or the HS talking *smile*, but its an interesting discussion.
Makes me realise the financial expression of my love for rfc isnt unconditional