Here is Peter Fitz's response to my original email and my response back. I'll admit up front I sucked up a bit in the opening paragraph:
Peter,
Firstly I would like to apologise for my last sentence in my previous email. I should have not impugned your manhood. I only know you through the vicarious link of a few emails etc. That was uncalled for, emotive, and detracted from my argument.
In answer to your questions:
I know via family connections, a former CEO of the Club - Mr Paul Cummings (CEO 2003-05 and briefly in 2006). He has also previously been the Australian head of Fujitsu General, a former Club sponsor, and from memory a member of the Leagues Club board. I do not know Stewart personally, but then I'm sure you don't either! The difference is I don't have a column in the SMH to tell the world what I think of him - fair or otherwise.
However, if I am guilty of 'tearing the scab off' via a riposte to your article, then I'm only responding to your position. The difference between you tearing the scab off and Des Hasler, or the Manly club defending their player is that they not only have a vested interest, as you suggest elsewhere, but they are also trying to move on via an apology from Gallop. Now I don't think that will ever happen and I think they know it too. Gallop has an entrenched position. But perhaps the best indication that Gallop (deep down) knew he was wrong, is that he has taken a much more measured approach to recent off-field conduct than he did two years ago. He went off on a tangent two years ago before he had spoken to anyone within the Club. I can understand him being angry then. But surely he should have spoken with the then Club CEO to get a take on what was happening? This is where the Cummings connection comes in. Now if Paul was incensed, which he was (remembering he had previously had a professional relationship with Gallop) and when Cummings was no longer part of the football club operation - imagine how they felt within that organisation? That is the crux of this entire imbroglio between Manly and the NRL.
My understanding of the law is that in a situation like the one on 6/ 7 Mar 09, the police were compelled to charge Stewart. I am not going to go over all that again. I just find it difficult to accept that you believe he was so horrendously drunk, an allegation made by the thoroughly discredited father and his disturbed daughter. Again, no one else was presented by the prosecution to support that allegation.
I will say this. You can believe what you want to believe regarding Stewart. I, like many others and not necessarily Manly supporters, believe otherwise. Respectfully, I don't care whether you like/dislike Des Hasler, Brett Stewart, Manly or whatever. But I can't believe you would write the article that appeared yesterday, and still expect me to believe you like Brett Stewart. Sorry, but that does you no credit in my book. You recently suggested he has been through enough in recent times. Then surely Peter, if I can take a vaguely religious cue from Des Hasler (!), you should practice what you preach on this issue?
Way off topic, but just to suggest there are no hard feelings, I am fully with you on the question of a republic, the flag, et al.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my previous email.
All the best.
Regards,
Craig
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig,
Are you really coming at me with an article published by someone for the Manly Sea-Eagles Supporters Group as your evidence?
Really?
Would I be right in saying you have a close relationship with Manly or Stewart himself? Come on, fess up. Yes, or no?
(Call me telepathic.)
For I am bemused that I am meant to have a bias.
I like Manly, and like Des Hasler. I have nothing personal against Stewart whatsoever.
I equally have no doubt - and nor do Fairfax lawyers - that I have been out of line in what I have written, most particularly in Stewart bringing the game into disrepute. And yes, I have talked to people in the room on the night, one of whom I regard as an absolutely impeccable source.
These police who didn't breathalyse him. Would they be the same ones who subsequently arrested him?
Is your position truly that Stewart was just some kind of innocent bystander in a case of mistaken identity or the like? Have you really convinced yourself of that?
Finally, do you really believe that tearing the scab of the wound is helping it to heal?
All the best,
Peter
Peter,
Firstly I would like to apologise for my last sentence in my previous email. I should have not impugned your manhood. I only know you through the vicarious link of a few emails etc. That was uncalled for, emotive, and detracted from my argument.
In answer to your questions:
I know via family connections, a former CEO of the Club - Mr Paul Cummings (CEO 2003-05 and briefly in 2006). He has also previously been the Australian head of Fujitsu General, a former Club sponsor, and from memory a member of the Leagues Club board. I do not know Stewart personally, but then I'm sure you don't either! The difference is I don't have a column in the SMH to tell the world what I think of him - fair or otherwise.
However, if I am guilty of 'tearing the scab off' via a riposte to your article, then I'm only responding to your position. The difference between you tearing the scab off and Des Hasler, or the Manly club defending their player is that they not only have a vested interest, as you suggest elsewhere, but they are also trying to move on via an apology from Gallop. Now I don't think that will ever happen and I think they know it too. Gallop has an entrenched position. But perhaps the best indication that Gallop (deep down) knew he was wrong, is that he has taken a much more measured approach to recent off-field conduct than he did two years ago. He went off on a tangent two years ago before he had spoken to anyone within the Club. I can understand him being angry then. But surely he should have spoken with the then Club CEO to get a take on what was happening? This is where the Cummings connection comes in. Now if Paul was incensed, which he was (remembering he had previously had a professional relationship with Gallop) and when Cummings was no longer part of the football club operation - imagine how they felt within that organisation? That is the crux of this entire imbroglio between Manly and the NRL.
My understanding of the law is that in a situation like the one on 6/ 7 Mar 09, the police were compelled to charge Stewart. I am not going to go over all that again. I just find it difficult to accept that you believe he was so horrendously drunk, an allegation made by the thoroughly discredited father and his disturbed daughter. Again, no one else was presented by the prosecution to support that allegation.
I will say this. You can believe what you want to believe regarding Stewart. I, like many others and not necessarily Manly supporters, believe otherwise. Respectfully, I don't care whether you like/dislike Des Hasler, Brett Stewart, Manly or whatever. But I can't believe you would write the article that appeared yesterday, and still expect me to believe you like Brett Stewart. Sorry, but that does you no credit in my book. You recently suggested he has been through enough in recent times. Then surely Peter, if I can take a vaguely religious cue from Des Hasler (!), you should practice what you preach on this issue?
Way off topic, but just to suggest there are no hard feelings, I am fully with you on the question of a republic, the flag, et al.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my previous email.
All the best.
Regards,
Craig
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig,
Are you really coming at me with an article published by someone for the Manly Sea-Eagles Supporters Group as your evidence?
Really?
Would I be right in saying you have a close relationship with Manly or Stewart himself? Come on, fess up. Yes, or no?
(Call me telepathic.)
For I am bemused that I am meant to have a bias.
I like Manly, and like Des Hasler. I have nothing personal against Stewart whatsoever.
I equally have no doubt - and nor do Fairfax lawyers - that I have been out of line in what I have written, most particularly in Stewart bringing the game into disrepute. And yes, I have talked to people in the room on the night, one of whom I regard as an absolutely impeccable source.
These police who didn't breathalyse him. Would they be the same ones who subsequently arrested him?
Is your position truly that Stewart was just some kind of innocent bystander in a case of mistaken identity or the like? Have you really convinced yourself of that?
Finally, do you really believe that tearing the scab of the wound is helping it to heal?
All the best,
Peter
