I reckon you're just shit stirring. :alien:

Srsly, of course the distinctions are arbitrarily placed. How would you solve that issue? I don't have an answer, so I offered my view of what the distinction is.

They broke the terms of their contract, so basically, that was it. They signed an agreement to behave in a certain way in public and they failed.

To go one step further, the players had both been drinking, so perhaps their bad judgement started from the point when they decided it'd be a good idea to go to a nightclub fully loaded.

I saw my bank teller drinking coffee.... she may be Mormon... I'm gonna' get her sacked!

I really would be a fan of a team that advertised "We are going to just get the best possible players we can... just that. That will be the ONLY think in their contract, WIN and we pay you."
Man, I would so wear that shirt.
They could be called The Winners! It would be AWESOME!

I'm getting excited about this... gonna' patent the idea...

A team that is built to win... just win. Get their players from all the others who were kicked-off the others for not being nice enough.
Their contract just says you win the game, comply with the rules of the league while on the field and in uniform and you are home free... that is all. It is not your job to raise people's kids.
Buy all the cars you want, get all the hoes pregnant you want, live in any hood you want, dress how you like in public, be seen in any strip joint you want, get any tattoo you want, blow-off an signing event you want, get your teeth plaited in gold and silver and your hair dyed blue and sign any endorsement you want... just WIN.

Then nobody will like your team, dude. You'll just be a gang who happens to play a sport. You'll have a team of hoodlums, of jerks, of bullies, of general undesirables. You will have no team charisma, and that is the real killer there. Nobody likes your team, then nobody pays you, pays to see you, pays for your endorsements, etc.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the REAL reason these kinds of people get sacked. Not civic duty, not appearance, not ethics, but cold hard cash.

There are salary caps in rugby league which means that each club can only spend a certain amount of money on talent. If they breach that cap, they can lose their competition points.

The idea is to keep the competition competitive.

I never said I would pay more than the league allowed or stated that the players would break any rules while in uniform or on the field.

Ibram... I think you would be VERY disappointed.
Yeah, Charles Barkley was really despised and hated... still is... sure. All those like him are :cool:
NOBODY pays endorsements to the show-boaters and the hot-shots... the touchdown dancers and the hot-rods... how silly of me... I forgot!

I am talking endorsements from adult companies... a team for adults, by adults, beer ads, unashamed hot cheerleaders who used to work in porn (or still do!), NO MASCOT... just the highest paying endorcer.... just WIN!

even adults don't like idiots rkz. Well, most of them don't.

Franchise out... basketball, football, rugby, bowling (with cheerleaders and cigars), hockey, you name it The Winners will have a team!

That's why no one watches reality tv.:p

Creative Idea, RK, but I don't think it would fly.
Firstly, I think (I'm not sure - Aliantha, can you confirm?) that in the Australian rugby league, and the Aussie rules footy league, the players' off-field behaviour is governed by a league-wide, not club-based, contract. Same rules for all players. So individual clubs cannot flout the system as you suggest. How is it in your part of the globe?
Also, team sports need team players. Jerks and louts rarely make good team players, and the more jerks together, the worse things get. A team can usually handle one or two jerks, (more for larger teams of course) but a team full of egotistical, arrogant, ill-disciplined bozos isn't going to prosper.
Also, the distinction between on and off field gets blurry. Can a player turn up to training hungover? drunk? still high? How about turning up to games like that? abusing the coach? Getting in fights with their team mates?
Notice, though, most of this doesn't apply for individual sports. Mike Tyson is the obvious example. Bad boy. Baaaaaaad. Didn't do too much harm to his boxing career, not that I followed it too closely. But maybe that says as much about boxing ...
And sponsors want more than winners. They want wholesome winners, because the "family values" section of the market is rich and powerful.
So, well it might make an interesting soap/drama (or reality TV show) but as a major league sports franchise business plan ... don't sell the house.

With a lot of drugs there are risks. You can end up snorting/injecting/swallowing something that isn't what it's supposed to be and which results in a fatality or illness. But then again, how many people die of food poisoning every year? Or from a first-time anaphalactic response to something they've developed an allergy to?

As for ecstacy. I still do not understand why this drug is illegal. The prime danger when taking ecstacy is that you may in fact be taking an entirely different (and very dangerous) substance, which has been marked and sold as MDMA. That risk would be seriously reduced if it was legal and regulated (bear in mind unregulated, bootleg alcohol can cause blindness, brain damage and death).

From NationMaster:

also

Most of those ill-effects can be countered with better education on the safe use of the drug. We get governmental warnings and advice about the safe consumption of alcohol. And alcohol is regulated to ensure it is safe to consume in limited quantities. In terms of the temporary depression post-ecstacy use, the so-called 'come-down': how is that different to a hangover? In terms of long-term effects, the dangers of long-term alcohol consumption are well known, well-documented and consequently avoidable. Alcohol is highly addictive, whilst ecstacy has yet to be shown as such.

It seems to me a little off-kilter to point to drugs which are dangerous precisely because they are unregulated, but which are apparently safe when regulated, and say they are inherently dangerous. It's even more off-kilter to suggest that a heavily regulated (and therefore 'safe') drug, like alcohol, is inherently safe. It's the regulation of that drug that makes it safe and the lack of regulation of the other that makes it dangerous.

That is correct. The NRL and AFL have a code of conduct which players are expected to follow however, the league itself isn't as harsh on players as some individual clubs because they would not want to be seen as disadvantaging one club over another.

I like how you stated that my idea would not work and ended with the Mike Tyson and sponsor examples. Nice work there. :rolleyes:

I am guilty of poor editing.

The Mike Tyson point was meant as an exception to my point that a team full of louts would be dysfunctional as a team, but this doesn't apply to individual sports. This should have gone one paragraph higher, to more tightly follow the team spirit comment or else right at the end, since it is the only exception. But individuals aren't franchises, your business plan doesn't apply here.

The point about sponsorship was a stand alone point, not a follow-on to the Tyson point. Very few companies would sponsor your teams. You'd be targeting a small niche market.

So, these paragraphs were intended to show extra reasons why your bad-boy winners franchise plan is unlikely to prosper.

Hell, try it. It'll be your mortgage.