Chiefs have won 2 of the last 3 against the Crusaders. Clearly they are favourites.

Chiefs by 15

Loving your work.

@Duluth said in Chiefs v Crusaders:

View image

Chiefs have won 2 of the last 3 against the Crusaders. Clearly they are favourites.

Chiefs by 15

Well we are at home so naturally we should be favourites.

A lot of Aucklanders cheering the Chiefs this weekend, I imagine.

Be a nice one to break our duck with.

@Duluth I'll get behind it.

@Hooroo said in Chiefs v Crusaders:

Be a nice one to break our duck with.

I...ahhhh...oh you said duck.

Anyone see Sevu Reece on the news blaring on about the how the Chiefs told him he was surplus to requirements and whinging about how he always wanted to play for the Chiefs.

Let's not forget the reason the Chiefs didn't sign him is because he smacked his Mrs up in Hamilton and nearly got a conviction.

@Yeetyaah Not to mention that Connacht also tore up his contract for the same reason.

@Yeetyaah said in Chiefs v Crusaders:

Anyone see Sevu Reece on the news blaring on about the how the Chiefs told him he was surplus to requirements and whinging about how he always wanted to play for the Chiefs.

Let's not forget the reason the Chiefs didn't sign him is because he smacked his Mrs up in Hamilton and nearly got a conviction.

That's factually incorrect. Connacht signed Sevu Reece on 28 May 2018 before the assault took place (1 July 2018); he must have been told by the Chiefs he wasn't wanted before he signed with Connacht. The assault can't have been the reason for the Chiefs not to sign him.

@Stargazer I'll try and find the article but I remember reading that the Chiefs specifically blacklisted Reece after the incident.

@Yeetyaah said in Chiefs v Crusaders:

@Stargazer I'll try and find the article but I remember reading that the Chiefs specifically blacklisted Reece after the incident.

Was there more than one incident from the coward?

@Yeetyaah Maybe after Connacht ripped up his contract? Even if that's the case, that doesn't contradict them saying they weren't interested earlier in the year.

As a result, the police prosecutor said Reece had already been blacklisted by the Chiefs rugby side

@Yeetyaah So they blacklisted him after he had already signed with Connacht, or after Connacht ripped up the contract. As I said in my previous post, that still doesn't exclude that they said Reece was surplus to requirements before he signed with Connacht.

Can't be bothered either way. It's history. All that matters is that he doesn't do it again.

@Stargazer It's all good mate you were wrong, @Yeetyaah was right. We're all wrong from time to time.

@African-Monkey Actually, I wasn't wrong at all. For the third time, the Chiefs may have told Reece he was surplus to requirements before he signed with Connacht and blacklisted him after the assault (after Connacht ripped up his contract, or not). One doesn't contradict the other.

Article on what was reported on before.

There was another factor too. For some bizarre reason the Chiefs signed Ataata Moeakiola so there wasn't a place for Reece in the squad.

@Bovidae True I do remember Coops signing that useless twat.

Oh well, whatever the reason I would like to thank Colin Cooper for overlooking Reece. The Chiefs' loss has certainly been our gain.