News: Brett Stewart may go to court to have ban overturned

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.

DUFFMAN

Bencher
according to the Daily Telegraph

By Josh Massoud
March 19, 2009 12:00am
EXILED Manly star Brett Stewart has made a shock move to overturn his four-week suspension, firing a lengthy legal letter to NRL boss David Gallop that could lead him to apply for a Supreme Court injunction against the playing ban.

The Daily Telegraph can reveal Stewart's lawyers sent Gallop a multi-page response on Tuesday evening showing cause why the new face of rugby league should not be forcibly stood down as he waits to face court on a sexual assault charge.

Gallop last night admitted that he was taken aback by the development, given Manly's public undertaking not to appeal over Stewart's suspension.

But the footballer's barrister Geoff Bellew said the action was "independent of Manly".

Read the Full Article
 
Re: Brett Stewart may go to court to have ban overturned

I think the strength of Brett's position will depend on what the NRL decide today on the Friend case. With Seymour suspended indefinitely this example probably won't come into the equation. However the Roosters have made a decision that I doubt the NRL will be able to live with.
 
<p>EXILED Manly star Brett Stewart has made a shock move to overturn his four-week suspension, firing a lengthy legal letter to NRL boss David Gallop that could lead him to apply for a Supreme Court injunction against the playing ban.

The Daily Telegraph can reveal Stewart's lawyers sent Gallop a multi-page response on Tuesday evening showing cause why the new face of rugby league should not be forcibly stood down as he waits to face court on a sexual assault charge.

Gallop last night admitted that he was taken aback by the development, given Manly's public undertaking not to appeal over Stewart's suspension.</p>

<a href="http://www.silvertails.net/news/Sea-Eagles/brett-stewart-may-go-to-court-to-have-ban-overturned.html">Read the full article</a>
 
Re: Brett Stewart may go to court to have ban overturned

Actually, the NRL will have to review both cases. As Rex reported earlier Seymour has been cleared:

"CRONULLA could be headed for a showdown with the NRL board over Brett Seymour after an independent investigation into the halfback's behaviour on Sunday night cleared him of any wrongdoing.

Seymour was stood down by the Sharks yesterday morning pending the outcome of the investigation into his actions at a drinking session, during which he was alleged to have thrown pizza and abused patrons.

The former Broncos halfback was also alleged to have urinated on himself, although bar staff have since confirmed Seymour had a drink spilt on him.

Although Seymour has admitted he was drunk, the investigator found no evidence of the other claims made against the Sharks No7.

As such, Seymour's suspension by the club could be lifted as early as today - the same day the NRL board will meet to discuss incidents involving the Sharks half and Sydney Roosters hooker Jake Friend, who was charged with high-range drink driving on Monday. "
 
Gallop should be holding an umbrella on him at all times as a **** storm will be coming his way.

Is the guy plain retarded? How can be confused to have received a letter from the club?

Well Dave, here it is. We sent you a letter because you are a hypocrite of the highest ****ing order. Absolute dickhead.
 
Pittwater Legend link said:
Gallop should be holding an umbrella on him at all times as a S**t storm will be coming his way.

Is the guy plain retarded? How can be confused to have received a letter from the club?

Well Dave, here it is. We sent you a letter because you are a hypocrite of the highest F**king order. Absolute dickhead.

He is confused because the Club said they weren't going to contest Bretts charge.

However this is not from the club and is from Brett's legal team
 
Gallop is a piss poor lawyer.  Any brief worth his/her salt would have at least thought about an independent action.  Just where is this guy's head?  This guy is THE problem with our game.  He's obviously a one thought thinker, can't see trains coming, and has no B, C, or D game plan.  Total idiot. 
 
http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news/binges-threaten-funding/2009/03/18/1237054905839.html
You'll note in this article that Brett Stewart denies he was refused service of alcohol at Manly Wharf Hotel.  If so, the trumped up charges by Gallop, which set a new precedent for a suspension based on simply being refused service of alcohol are actually based on a lie. So it seems.

In any case it has already been established that Manly's function finished at 3pm and the action Gallop is claiming to act on, he is apparently claiming happened many hours after the function finished.

So Gallop's attempt to differentiate Stewart from the Friends and Seymours based on some meaningless technicality (splitting of hairs) - of it supposedly being at an official is in fact totally untrue.  So it seems.

We need to keep repeating "so it seems" in our minds because you can't trust what is reported in the papers, and you certainly can't take it at face value.  I quoted above, based on a news report, that Stewart admitted getting intoxicated after the function.  I'm seriously beginning to wonder whether he's actually admitted getting intoxicated, or whether that is just ANOTHER abstraction from the truth, another assumption, made by some reporter.
 
Look Gallop is a clown but until News Ltd gets out of running NRL we are stuck with him IMO
 
The facts are simple. If three, four or thirty players have all generated negative publicity due to public intoxication, then all three, four or thirty players should get a 4 week suspension due to the precedent set by David Gallop.
Brett's got a bloody good case then.
 
Poor Mr Gallop has painted himself into a corner here  :'(  if he doesn't act he'll be very publicly seen as weak or biased or a hippocrite (or all 3) and all hell will break out every time a player gets in trouble from alcohol in the future. No one will know what the rules are if gallop doesn't act now the same as he did to Stewart.

He'd be hating the fact he has only 7 days ago given himself the exact precedent and actions that he needs to apply now.

So whats the betting on how Gallop will be: gettin hard...or going limp?

Somebody must be making this up - what an unbelievable twist of events within one week. Then again after the Roosters performance its no wonder they were drinking  ;)
 
He will find some lame loophole, at which point Brett should immediately be re-instated to play by either the tribunal or the supreme court injunction.
 
i thought this would take a couple of months to come to fruition.

Im very glad its happened so soon.
 
DSM5 link said:
Gallop is a piss poor lawyer.  Any brief worth his/her salt would have at least thought about an independent action.  Just where is this guy's head?  This guy is THE problem with our game.  He's obviously a one thought thinker, can't see trains coming, and has no B, C, or D game plan.  Total idiot. 

There you go DSM. You can have an applaud for that fine comment. ;D
 
Its obvious where Brett is getting his advice from. As I said previously, im pleased Bellew and Des are in his corner.

The letter sent to Gallop is a kind of "show cause" heads up. Gallop will be busy assessing the NRLs position and if he believes an injunction would be possible based upon the Seymour/Friend case (amongst oither factors) he will never let it get to a Supreme Court hearing.

Before that happens, he will find a lame loophole (as Dan says) and backflip faster than a circus midget facing a skunk.

But dont think we will get a transparent reversal of his original decision. It will come in the form of a spun version of events and sold amongst the parties who all agree how it will be sold to the media and public.

Doesnt change the fact that Gallop is a mong and has made vey poor decisions on this matter.

News Ltd.....................Sack Gallop NOW !
 
the problem with sacking Gallop is that he is probably on an undeserving lucrative wage meaning the termination of his contract will involve a few milllion $ spent, perfect example is the recent sacking of Sol from Telstra which cost $20 Million to get rid of him.
 
deadlyeagle link said:
the problem with sacking Gallop is that he is probably on an undeserving lucrative wage meaning the termination of his contract will involve a few milllion $ spent, perfect example is the recent sacking of Sol from Telstra which cost $20 Million to get rid of him.

Didn't I see on the news last night or the day before that Rudd is trying to introduce legislation preventing those sort of payouts to executives?
 
Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
4 3 1 28 6
3 2 1 10 6
4 2 2 39 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom