Salary Cap Witch Hunt. **Appeal unsuccessful**

Name and shame the player as he is tarnishing every other player by being protected by Brookvale Mazda :wait:

Sick of reading about :-

  • The non-event of the Gladstone night out. The Strip Club is on record as stating that the players were well behaved.
  • Jacko and Chez fighting as being some unheard of incident between players in a footy club.
  • Nase's sex tape is completely his problem and nothing to do with Manly at all.
:swear:

#ManlyGetYourStuffTogether
 
Name and shame the player as he is tarnishing every other player by being protected by Brookvale Mazda :wait:

#ManlyGetYourStuffTogether
I daresay he's being protected by Manly too.

Yet surely tearing up the player's contract is worth far less to Manly than losing the sponsorship of Brookvale Mazda :think: Damn shame to lose it 😡
 
I daresay he's being protected by Manly too.

Yet surely tearing up the player's contract is worth far less to Manly than losing the sponsorship of Brookvale Mazda :think: Damn shame to lose it 😡
The sponsorship is another issue but having every Manly player painted as a loose cannon does not make sense :fubar:

We are not Parra :wait:

images
 
Not trying to nit pick Happily but ... a) Is this a sponsorship or TPA issue .... b) is there a difference ? ......
TPA - players are 'ambassadors for BM'

At the end of each year most Clubs change minor sponsors in any case.

Manly has to revisit their whole operation as I don't see any department delivering on their KPIs 😡
 
Not sure what they were thinking putting a Turbo in a Mazda buuuuuut
Looking through facebook looks like its the Mazda 7
2 xTurbo
AFB
Jorge
Siro
Winterstein
Api
 
I thought it was interesting that Andrew gee was in the coaches box with Broncos attire and a lanyard. Wasn't he meant to be banished after that mystery 300 000 large

Different rules for different clubs I guess

I'd write to the NRL if I thought they would listen.
 
I thought it was interesting that Andrew gee was in the coaches box with Broncos attire and a lanyard. Wasn't he meant to be banished after that mystery 300 000 large

Different rules for different clubs I guess

I'd write to the NRL if I thought they would listen.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/b...t/news-story/b9ebfe5ab86eb05699d5b8861f0ecfc8


THE NRL will issue a “please explain” to the Broncos after a controversial guest sat in Wayne Bennett’s coach’s box on Sunday.
 
So are we there yet???


Seems to be a deliberate ploy to stretch out having to make a decision until after the GF and / or well into the off season.

I know it's not the same thing but there's a law (in the usa at least) saying the defendant has the right to a speedy trial. The police can't arrest someone and the DA say oh ok, we'll get to you in 10 years. Just stay in gaol until then.

Well... Manly certainly aren't getting any rights to a speedy resolution.

Who knows.
 
Seems to be a deliberate ploy to stretch out having to make a decision until after the GF and / or well into the off season.

I know it's not the same thing but there's a law (in the usa at least) saying the defendant has the right to a speedy trial. The police can't arrest someone and the DA say oh ok, we'll get to you in 10 years. Just stay in gaol until then.

Well... Manly certainly aren't getting any rights to a speedy resolution.

Who knows.
It's the same here, justice delayed is justice denied, and this delay certainly harms Manly.
If we were allowed to present fresh evidence at the appeal, the appeal should have been decided on what was before the appeal panel, namely Greenberg's original evidence plus whatever we had raised in defence.
If, as Kent has alluded to, Greenberg has been allowed to go off and conduct a further investigation, that seems a flawed process to me. We are appealing against the prosecution finalised last March, not some new prosecution that hasn't even been completed yet.
 
It's the same here, justice delayed is justice denied, and this delay certainly harms Manly.
If we were allowed to present fresh evidence at the appeal, the appeal should have been decided on what was before the appeal panel, namely Greenberg's original evidence plus whatever we had raised in defence.
If, as Kent has alluded to, Greenberg has been allowed to go off and conduct a further investigation, that seems a flawed process to me. We are appealing against the prosecution finalised last March, not some new prosecution that hasn't even been completed yet.
But you and I both know this isn’t law, it’s “ Toddy’s law” and that’s different ( he’s allowed to make it up as you go along).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Back
Top Bottom