Cat got your tongue Gallop ?

  • 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.
ManlyBacker link said:
No offence e_p, but Manly were fined 100k for having a season launch that went out of control, nothing to do with Brett's innocence or guilt. Also, I don't see why a club should be fined if one of their players is found guilty of an offence unless they were directly involved.

No offence taken MB my bad your right to why Manly got the 100k fine.
 
The fact is that at the time the stories brok, there isn't a huge difference between the two incidents.

Manly stood by their player, believing him when he told them he had done nothing wrong. For this, Brett & the team were punished.

Melbourne make a half-ar$ed motion towards selling their boy out & it's applauded.

That's not my idea of morality.
 
The NRL & NRL teams need to be seen that they are acting when a player is alleged to have committed some offence or indiscretion, to not do so would give the appearance of condoning the players actions.

I think Manly erred badly with the Stewart incident. They (Manly)should have acted promtly & stood Brett down for 2 weeks, this would have probably appeased the NRL.

Without any knowledge it would by my guess that neither Brett nor Inglis would have been, or are in the right headspace to be playing football given the amount of pressure that they both would have been feeling at theat particular time in any case.

If/when Melbourne declare Inglis available then I would expect the NRL to act if the amount of games that Inglis has missed is not consistent with what Stewart received.
 
you know why though Corso Pete. The media went overboard with the Brett Stewart saga.. it was everywhere.. for weeks there were still articles on his case EVERY DAY.. the footy show basically used a whole show on it and brought in the NRL and called him a 'moron'.

This is unfair for an allegation on a player who has had a perfect history. Im proud of Manly for standing by him.. someone had to.. he was getting crucified.

Here we are with "G.I".. the media darling who gets protected and suddenly gets a heroes spin to it all. Look at the photos of him drunk etc.. previously posted.. he looks like a dickhead not a poster boy.

Id rather Brett get suspended 4 games knowing that our club backed him.. rather than 2 weeks knowing we just let him fry for unproven allegation.
 
Jethro link said:
[quote author=Corso_Pete link=topic=181351.msg236637#msg236637 date=1250203110]

Why is it a disgrace?, Manly forced the NRL to act, whether the decision by the NRL to suspend Brett is another debate. In this instance Melbourne took the onus away from the NRL and stood Inglis down, at the moment what decision do the NRL have to make?.

This matter is fairly fluid at the moment with reports overnight that Ms Robinson was actually trying to commit self harm and that Inglis was intervening, who know what the truth really is.

As much as it pains me me to admit the Storm have acted appropriatly at this stage and taken away the need for Gallop to intervene. One wonders if Manly had stood Brett down for 2 weeks when his stuff up first occurred would the NRL have stepped in and imposed a 4 week ban? My guess is that would not have, they were just so pissed off with Manly failing to take any action at all they just come over the top with the 4 week suspension.

I could be wrong but didn't the NRL step in and impose an extra punishment earlier this year on a Sharks or Rooster player when they thought that the punishment dished out by the club was insufficient?
[/quote]

I'll answer my own question seeing as though no-one has yet responded.

Yes, earlier this year, Rooster player Jake Friend was suspended by the NRL for 2 weeks after he was charged with a high-range drink-driving offence. The Roosters Club had not suspended him but hit him with a $10,000 fine but after a teleconference by the NRL board, they (the NRL) decided to increase the club's imposed penalty and suspend him for the 2 weeks.

http://www.livenews.com.au/sport/jake-friend-suspended-for-two-weeks-by-nrl/2009/3/19/198018

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would appear to me that only alcohol related incidents wears the wrath of Gallop and the NRL.  Violence against women does not seem to warrant further punishment by the NRL because we all know that Brett was suspended only because of his drunkenness at the official club function.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
These conspiracy theorist's are laughed at. Why??? All teams are created equal, it is just that some are more equal than others...
 
This new spin on it is a bit of a laugh

No doubt Gallop will be straight on the plane down to Melbourne so he can drive the ute around the stadium as they parade Sir Greg Inglis, saviour of all young women in Australia, around Olympic Park
 
Jethro link said:
[quote author=Jethro link=topic=181351.msg236658#msg236658 date=1250213902]

[quote author=Corso_Pete link=topic=181351.msg236637#msg236637 date=1250203110]

Why is it a disgrace?, Manly forced the NRL to act, whether the decision by the NRL to suspend Brett is another debate. In this instance Melbourne took the onus away from the NRL and stood Inglis down, at the moment what decision do the NRL have to make?.

This matter is fairly fluid at the moment with reports overnight that Ms Robinson was actually trying to commit self harm and that Inglis was intervening, who know what the truth really is.

As much as it pains me me to admit the Storm have acted appropriatly at this stage and taken away the need for Gallop to intervene. One wonders if Manly had stood Brett down for 2 weeks when his stuff up first occurred would the NRL have stepped in and imposed a 4 week ban? My guess is that would not have, they were just so pissed off with Manly failing to take any action at all they just come over the top with the 4 week suspension.

I could be wrong but didn't the NRL step in and impose an extra punishment earlier this year on a Sharks or Rooster player when they thought that the punishment dished out by the club was insufficient?
[/quote]

I'll answer my own question seeing as though no-one has yet responded.

Yes, earlier this year, Rooster player Jake Friend was suspended by the NRL for 2 weeks after he was charged with a high-range drink-driving offence. The Roosters Club had not suspended him but hit him with a $10,000 fine but after a teleconference by the NRL board, they (the NRL) decided to increase the club's imposed penalty and suspend him for the 2 weeks.

http://www.livenews.com.au/sport/jake-friend-suspended-for-two-weeks-by-nrl/2009/3/19/198018

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would appear to me that only alcohol related incidents wears the wrath of Gallop and the NRL.  Violence against women does not seem to warrant further punishment by the NRL because we all know that Brett was suspended only because of his drunkenness at the official club function.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[/quote]

That is my point Jethro, the NRL only intervened when they considered the fine imposed on Friend was inadequate, similar to Manly & Brett.

As it stands at the moment Inglis has been stood down indefintly, that could mean 1 week or it may mean an entire season, we don't know. I will lead the protest march to NRL headquarters if Gallop does not intervene if Inglis does not serve at least a 4 match suspension, but at this stage they are leaving the ban in Inglis' employers hands and I believe that to be the appropriate response. Until that situation changes Gallop, for once cannot accept blame.
 
Corso_Pete link said:
That is my point Jethro, the NRL only intervened when they considered the fine imposed on Friend was inadequate, similar to Manly & Brett.

As it stands at the moment Inglis has been stood down indefintly, that could mean 1 week or it may mean an entire season, we don't know. I will lead the protest march to NRL headquarters if Gallop does not intervene if Inglis does not serve at least a 4 match suspension, but at this stage they are leaving the ban in Inglis' employers hands and I believe that to be the appropriate response. Until that situation changes Gallop, for once cannot accept blame.

Both Friend and Stewart were not penalised appropriately by the clubs, according to the NRL. Yet no Gallop venim., only praise of the Roosters.

So according to the NRL being caught by Police on a high range DUI is worth HALF the penalty of being caught by a bartender asking for one drink too many, without testing, and catching a cab home.  Explain that logic please.

You are dreaming Corso Pete if you think Gallop will give Inglis a four-week suspension before any guilty plea/verdict in the courts.  Guity verdicts carry up to a five year sentence, so any NRL action then may be dwarfed into insignificance.  

Enjoy leading that protest march. Inglis, like Gallop, is a News Ltd asset and a protected species.
 
You are dreaming Rex if you think the sole reason the way the NRL acted on Brett was for "being caught by a bartender asking for one drink too many, without testing, and catching a cab home". You know it, I know it, the whole world knows it. Throwing it up as justification for your outrage is beneath anyone's logic.
 
So you would be saying he was suspended for bringing ugly headlines to the game? Regardless of whether he had actually comitted any offence of course.
 
SeaEagleRock8 link said:
So you would be saying he was suspended for bringing ugly headlines to the game?
Absolutely. It was a combination of the season launch, being refused service and being arrested. The NRL lawyers covered their arses by stating that the arrest had nothing to do with it, but it sure did. It was a result of public pressure, the failure of Manly to act on it and the disappointment of the NRL having their launch campaign ruined.
 
But that is the whole point. The NRL punishment of Stewart was ridiculously dishonest. The created the difficulty they have been in ever since when a player does anything wrong, namely there is no consistency. This Inglis incident is the first that has come up since which actually has some degree of parity with Stewart's case, namely the profile of the player and the allegation of violence against a woman. The NRL will have to treat this case in a similar fashion, and so far they haven't had to do anything because Storm stood him down. But when Storm try to pick him to play against Manly watch the fur fly.
 
I agree 100%, especially with parity of cases SER8.

My comments about Brett were because I just can't stand any further argument justifications for penalties based on an NRL statement, when I hope the sane will realise it was more than being about getting refused service. It is also my bad to just put that up and fail to link it to the Inglis arrest.

In both cases imo the NRL erred by failing to acknowledge the presumption of innocence and bowing to media pressure. Also the general 'fly by the seat of the pants' methodology used by the NRL in handling player misconduct is just not good enough. I hope and expect the NRL disciplinary actions will be very similar, and if they aren't then  posters are right to vent at will.
 
Give them Inglis next week, I would rather beat them with all their players so they cannot complain. If we get Brett back they will have no chance with or without Inglis.
 
Corso Pete with all due respect,why should Manlys so called lack of action be perceived as doing the wrong thing,considering a precident had already been set with other alleged assault cases going threw the correct channels and being allowed to play on until a court made there decision.Manly dont make the laws so surely they were entitled too play there player and in doing this show there support too a star player who they believe is innocent,had they stood him down it may have seemed he was in someway guilty and considering the hysteria surrounding the whole affair it would be silly to think manly taking action would have lessened the penalty handed down from the nrl,they would have given him longer if they could.If manly believe he is innocent why would they stand him down?
 
ManlyBacker link said:
You are dreaming Rex if you think the sole reason the way the NRL acted on Brett was for \"being caught by a bartender asking for one drink too many, without testing, and catching a cab home\". You know it, I know it, the whole world knows it. Throwing it up as justification for your outrage is beneath anyone's logic.

Your assumption that I believe what the NRL said is misplaced MB.  Didn't say that.  The point is that the NRL is being disingenuous and dishonest about their actions.  They know they can't come clean on the real reasons for their actions because they know those reasons are unjustifiable and defamatory.  

If presumption of innocence is accorded, then the NRL has no basis - zero - to take any action except for their pathetic excuse that Brett was refused service at an official function.  And to clear-thinking people that excuse doesn't justify their actions in any way, shape or form. There is no precedent.  There is no logic.  It is totally implausible.

If Brett is innocent then who is actually responsible for bringing the ugly headlines to the game?  Do you then put people like the false accusers and damners, including the girl, Gallop, people like Magnay and Vautin (and basically all of the media), and all people who prejudged him, ahead of Stewart in terms of genuine responsibility for the ugly headlines?  
 
Rex link said:
[quote author=ManlyBacker link=topic=181351.msg236774#msg236774 date=1250289485]
You are dreaming Rex if you think the sole reason the way the NRL acted on Brett was for \"being caught by a bartender asking for one drink too many, without testing, and catching a cab home\". You know it, I know it, the whole world knows it. Throwing it up as justification for your outrage is beneath anyone's logic.

Your assumption that I believe what the NRL said is misplaced MB.  Didn't say that.  The point is that the NRL is being disingenuous and dishonest about their actions.  They know they can't come clean on the real reasons for their actions because they know those reasons are unjustifiable and defamatory. 

If presumption of innocence is accorded, then the NRL has no basis - zero - to take any action except for their pathetic excuse that Brett was refused service at an official function.  And to clear-thinking people that excuse doesn't justify their actions in any way, shape or form. There is no precedent.  There is no logic.  It is totally implausible.

If Brett is innocent then who is actually responsible for bringing the ugly headlines to the game?  Do you then put people like the false accusers and damners, including the girl, Gallop, people like Magnay and Vautin (and basically all of the media), and all people who prejudged him, ahead of Stewart in terms of genuine responsibility for the ugly headlines? 
[/quote]

Rex, as you can see from the subsequent posts (just above) I agree with most poster’s thoughts including yours. However….

1. I never said or assumed you believed what the NRL said. I still stand by my point that your use of their statement (i.e. the reason given for his 4 weeks) as a line of justification for criticizing any other metered punishment is just plain silly.
e.g. “So according to the NRL being caught by Police on a high range DUI is worth HALF the penalty of being caught by a bartender asking for one drink too many, without testing, and catching a cab home.  Explain that logic please.”

2.  “If Brett is innocent then who is actually responsible for bringing the ugly headlines to the game?” you ask. I guess the dumb answer is that the ‘press’ is because they wrote them. But my answer is that our club is responsible. They had a launch that went off the rails as a result of an inappropriate venue where too much was drunk, where guests were abused, and where players were allowed to kick on. The ugly headlines were destined to be written when Brett showed up at the police station. I don’t like to muddy waters by semantics so here it is in a nutshell – clean Manly club season launch, clean NRL season launch, no headlines.
 
ManlyBacker link said:
Rex, as you can see from the subsequent posts (just above) I agree with most poster’s thoughts including yours. However….

1. I never said or assumed you believed what the NRL said. I still stand by my point that your use of their statement (i.e. the reason given for his 4 weeks) as a line of justification for criticizing any other metered punishment is just plain silly.
e.g. “So according to the NRL being caught by Police on a high range DUI is worth HALF the penalty of being caught by a bartender asking for one drink too many, without testing, and catching a cab home.  Explain that logic please.”

Not sure what you want explained from that MB. Jake Friend was caught and charged and convicted of high range DUI, more than three times the legal limit from recollection. He admitted guilt.  Roosters didn't suspend him, NRL gave him 2 weeks. Stewart was refused service of alcohol, left the premises without incident and caught a cab home.  The NRL have repeatedly emphasised that their suspension of Stewart had nothing to do with sexual assault allegations, which are disputed. Manly left that matter to the courts and didn't suspend Stewart.  NRL gave Stewart four weeks. Plus Stewart and Manly had no real warning of the NRL's tough new stance, especially as none of the Broncos players received any suspension for the previous incident damaging to the NRL reputation.  Gallop had merely spouted hot air.  The Roosters and Friend did have fair warning.

“So according to the NRL being caught by Police on a high range DUI is worth HALF the penalty of being caught by a bartender asking for one drink too many, without testing, and catching a cab home."  

ManlyBacker link said:
2.  â€œIf Brett is innocent then who is actually responsible for bringing the ugly headlines to the game?” you ask. I guess the dumb answer is that the ‘press’ is because they wrote them. But my answer is that our club is responsible. They had a launch that went off the rails as a result of an inappropriate venue where too much was drunk, where guests were abused, and where players were allowed to kick on. The ugly headlines were destined to be written when Brett showed up at the police station. I don’t like to muddy waters by semantics so here it is in a nutshell – clean Manly club season launch, clean NRL season launch, no headlines.

1.  You presume to know the facts of the season launch MB.  Facts under dispute.  To expect Manly or any club to always remain squeaky clean and uncriticisable in the real world is a fantasy. The issue under dispute is not the error but the penalty applied.

2,  You say it is a dumb answer to hold the press accountable for maligning Stewart if he is innocent.  Disagree.  What is dumb is having dumb journalists and dumb NRL officials and dumb public decide guilt and innocence on charges before the courts.

3,  You say Manly are responsible for not having a clean launch.  Agree.  You suggest four weeks suspension was therefore appropriate.   Disagree.  A referee can find multiple infringements in every ruck and every play.  And the referee who awards an unprecedented penalty try on a brutal but legitimate tackle, or for a minor scrum infringement, has clearly lost the plot.

If Inglis plays this week and a referee penalises him because he believes he is a wife basher or has brought the game into disrepute, then that referee is exceeding his reasonable and assigned powers. Just like Gallop did.
 
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