: Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:59 pm
sgtwilko wrote:
i think lord percy has explained the differences in his posts above
You mean in the one where
Lord Percy wrote:
The comments were made about signing players banned from the NRL, as several reports have said Bird is/was. It was never about signing players who had, or were the subject of, criminal convictions.
he referred to signing players banned from the NRL? When of course Bird was nothing of the sort and that was clear at the time?
Its pretty hard to see how allowing two players convicted and sent down for violent offences to play in SL was OK, whereas preventing a player who (at the time) was only charged with a violent offence and claimed innocence was not?
The only other factor having any bearing was that the former players were British and the latter player was from overseas.
So Hetherington cannot have had an issue with the first point - allowing players charged with or actually convicted of violent offences to play in SL. His own actions with his own players demonstrated that.
Which means the only other issue he can have had an issue with was allowing overseas players to play in SL. But he cannot have had an issue with that either, else he would not have signed Buderus and Eastwood.
Indeed, he cannot have had an issue with it being a "banned" player, because even if he was "unclear" of Bird's status at the time, once it was made clear to him that the player was not "banned" he did not issue a retraction, clarification or apology.
So what exactly DID he have an issue with that made the two situations different, given that if anything the situation regarding his own players was more serious?
The obvious factor remaining remaining was that the player in question had signed for any club not his own? But it can't even have been that, because he did not go apoplectic over said player's subsequent signing for Catalans.
So where does that leave us? The only remaining logical deduction was that it was because Bird had signed for BRADFORD. That, in turn, would lead one to deduce that his public vitriol was aimed primarily at discrediting Bradford, and maybe at trying to influence through the media the officials who were considering his visa application at the time? Simply because any other conclusion would indicate gross hypocrisy and, as we all know, Hetherington is an honourable man. Yet Hetherington would not do that? Would he...?
So there you have it. All as extensively debated at the time. Further debate is academic. As always, people will have formed their own views as to motives. I certainly have!
he wasn't allowed to play in the NRL FACT!!!!
Back at yer!! 
