manlyfan. said:Rainman, Seriously there's nobody on your playing roster that i would go after, that's not said to be vindictive... i just think your club lacks class...lol
Berkeley_Eagle said:How many local juniors do you have again in your 25 man squad ?
MrInvisible said:Sorry guys, but you need to remember something.
Gallop would still be seething over the Stewart incident and we already know he's no fan of Manly. That's not to say he loves the Bulldogs, but from a logical standpoint he WILL intervene if required, because the last thing he wants is the two clubs in court over this. It'd make a laughing stock of the NRL.
I dare say he'd be calling both parties if push came to shove and telling them to sort it out OUTSIDE court.
Think of it like two franchisees going to court against each other. Regardless of the outcome the parent company looks bad.
Loigcally if you were going to launch legal action over this, wouldn't you act BEFORE the horse has bolted, and use it as a distraction to sign up your off contract players while the other club is busy going through the courts?
MrInvisible said:Sorry guys, but you need to remember something.
Gallop would still be seething over the Stewart incident and we already know he's no fan of Manly. That's not to say he loves the Bulldogs, but from a logical standpoint he WILL intervene if required, because the last thing he wants is the two clubs in court over this. It'd make a laughing stock of the NRL.
I dare say he'd be calling both parties if push came to shove and telling them to sort it out OUTSIDE court.
Think of it like two franchisees going to court against each other. Regardless of the outcome the parent company looks bad.
Loigcally if you were going to launch legal action over this, wouldn't you act BEFORE the horse has bolted, and use it as a distraction to sign up your off contract players while the other club is busy going through the courts?
You know this how ? Let me guess you know someone on the commissionMrInvisible said:Gallop would still be seething over the Stewart incident and we already know he's no fan of Manly
MrInvisible said:Sorry guys, but you need to remember something.
Gallop would still be seething over the Stewart incident and we already know he's no fan of Manly. That's not to say he loves the Bulldogs, but from a logical standpoint he WILL intervene if required, because the last thing he wants is the two clubs in court over this. It'd make a laughing stock of the NRL.
I dare say he'd be calling both parties if push came to shove and telling them to sort it out OUTSIDE court.
Think of it like two franchisees going to court against each other. Regardless of the outcome the parent company looks bad.
Loigcally if you were going to launch legal action over this, wouldn't you act BEFORE the horse has bolted, and use it as a distraction to sign up your off contract players while the other club is busy going through the courts?
Jatz Crackers said:1) Menzies
2) Sub Mountable ? Is there a naval battle on this friday we dont know about, or does that mean some sort of low doggy style ?
urulion said:Jatz Crackers said:1) Menzies
2) Sub Mountable ? Is there a naval battle on this friday we dont know about, or does that mean some sort of low doggy style ?
It should have read Mensies and surmountable. I really do hope that the obscurity has not defected from your comprehension.
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 |