Carey Did Nothing Wrong - apologies please

[ok.crows]

ok.crows:

Show me on whit of evidence that they did either of those things ... there is your challenge. One tiny scrap of actual evidence. A quote even.

Originally posted by Mudholian
AFTER weeks of denials, the Adelaide Football Club yesterday admitted star recruit Wayne Carey was at a party in which a Glenelg hotel room was damaged.

Quote : Despite issuing a statement on January 24 rejecting allegations published interstate about the party at the Stamford Grand Hotel on January 5, the Crows have confirmed Carey was present.
Contrary to an earlier response from the Crows that they were "satisfied Wayne Carey was not involved in any incident at the Stamford Grand", Mr Reid admitted the club had now spoken to Carey about the night.
Mr Reid said Carey had told him there were no compromising photographs of him.
Yesterday Mr Reid denied the club had paid for anything and said he had acted as a broker over the incident between the family and the party guests.
"We came up with the suggestion is there anything that can be done to resolve this," Mr Reid said.

Sorry Mudholian, quoting a reporter is not evidence. You have to quote the Crows, to show that the Crows did or did not lie.

The bits you have here that actually are quotes of what the Crows said "we are satisfied Wayne Carey was not involved in any incident at the Stamford Grand" - nothing wrong with that - no lies there at all as it contains no denial that an incident occurred, and it contains no denial that Carey was present at a party at the Grand.

 

[goal_umpire]

Agree with you Jars.

It almost sounded like the lady who was on the phone was drunk.

 

[Mudholian]

Originally posted by ok.crows
ok.crows:



Sorry Mudholian, quoting a reporter is not evidence. You have to quote the Crows, to show that the Crows did or did not lie.

The bits you have here that actually are quotes of what the Crows said "we are satisfied Wayne Carey was not involved in any incident at the Stamford Grand" - nothing wrong with that - no lies there at all as it contains no denial that an incident occurred, and it contains no denial that Carey was present at a party at the Grand.

A couple of points. THe source is the Advertiser. The original story was prnted on Jan 25 as follows

"The Adelaide Crows have denied reports high-profile recruit Wayne Carey was involved in an incident at the Stamford Grand Hotel on January 5 this year.
Chief executive officer Steven Trigg yesterday issued a short media release which said despite reports which appeared in yesterday's Melbourne Herald Sun newspaper, the club was satisfied no incident took place and that neither Wayne nor the club had paid money for a room said to have been damaged by Carey.
The club would make no further comment.".

This was misleading. The statement that Wayne Carey was not involved in an incident is hogwash. If there was no incident then the AFC would never have got involved in the first case. In fact, Wayne Carey was involved in an incident, and what is more, John Reid entered into negotiations which included reimbursement, to help "resolve it".

Both the statement and the "brokering" were gross errors of judgement by the AFC.

 

[Crows_Brat]

Originally posted by suzi_olsen
Agree with you Jars.

It almost sounded like the lady who was on the phone was drunk.

I'd like to get you drunk.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Mudholian
A couple of points. THe source is the Advertiser. The original story was prnted on Jan 25 as follows

"The Adelaide Crows have denied reports high-profile recruit Wayne Carey was involved in an incident at the Stamford Grand Hotel on January 5 this year.
Chief executive officer Steven Trigg yesterday issued a short media release which said despite reports which appeared in yesterday's Melbourne Herald Sun newspaper, the club was satisfied no incident took place and that neither Wayne nor the club had paid money for a room said to have been damaged by Carey.
The club would make no further comment.".

This was misleading. The statement that Wayne Carey was not involved in an incident is hogwash. If there was no incident then the AFC would never have got involved in the first case. In fact, Wayne Carey was involved in an incident, and what is more, John Reid entered into negotiations which included reimbursement, to help "resolve it".

Both the statement and the "brokering" were gross errors of judgement by the AFC.

If that article is accurate then there is a problem. However I strongly doubt the accuracy of the article - it does not quote Trigg nor his press release but only offers an interpretation of it. I think the article was misleading about what the Crows said, rather than what the Crows actually said was misleading.

Find the AFC press release - quote from that directly - where the club is supposed to have said that no incident took place. I'd wager that the clubs actual press release says no such thing. However, if it does, then you have a point.

I'd wager that the Crows press release actually says only that "The Adelaide Crows deny reports that Wayne Carey was involved in an incident at the Stamford Grand Hotel on January 5 this year" and that it also says something like "neither Wayne nor the club have paid money for damage to a room". Why would the club say more than that - when saying just that is all that is required and is 100% accurate.

Just to re-inforce - Wayne was not involved - beyond just being in the vicinity. Wayne didn't damage any rooms nor did he have anything to do with any cameras. Even the original (money-seeking) accusers now admit this. No hogwash at all Muddy.

Once again you seem to be confused with an actual quote from the club and a media report about that quote.

Further, I can't see any problem at all with the club - in response to a call asking for a lost camera - saying "we'll chase it up for you with the people who have the camera" in order to get "reimbursement" from those who had the camera. Further, said "reimbursement" was supposed to be for loss of the holiday photos the camera contained, and had absolutely nothing to do with "hush money".

 

[Port01]

Originally posted by ok.crows

Just to re-inforce - Wayne was not involved - beyond just being in the vicinity.

Unfortunately for your argument, being persent constitutes involvement, whether direct or indirect.

The crows changed their story from no involvement to no direct involvement.

There is a big difference there.

All clubs cover stuff up though, including Port, it doesn't mean a lot, except that some people are naive enough to think it doesn't happen.

 

[Mudholian]

Originally posted by ok.crows
If that article is accurate then there is a problem. However I strongly doubt the accuracy of the article - it does not quote Trigg nor his press release but only offers an interpretation of it. I think the article was misleading about what the Crows said, rather than what the Crows actually said was misleading.

Find the AFC press release - quote from that directly - where the club is supposed to have said that no incident took place. I'd wager that the clubs actual press release says no such thing. However, if it does, then you have a point.

I'd wager that the Crows press release actually says only that "The Adelaide Crows deny reports that Wayne Carey was involved in an incident at the Stamford Grand Hotel on January 5 this year" and that it also says something like "neither Wayne nor the club have paid money for damage to a room". Why would the club say more than that - when saying just that is all that is required and is 100% accurate.

Just to re-inforce - Wayne was not involved - beyond just being in the vicinity. Wayne didn't damage any rooms nor did he have anything to do with any cameras. Even the original (money-seeking) accusers now admit this. No hogwash at all Muddy.

Once again you seem to be confused with an actual quote from the club and a media report about that quote.

Further, I can't see any problem at all with the club - in response to a call asking for a lost camera - saying "we'll chase it up for you with the people who have the camera" in order to get "reimbursement" from those who had the camera. Further, said "reimbursement" was supposed to be for loss of the holiday photos the camera contained, and had absolutely nothing to do with "hush money".

Well, perhaps we can put our discussion to rest by agreeing the the AFC said in their press release of January 24, that Wayne Carey was "not involved in an incident at the Stamford Grand". This may clear up what you consider to be "confusion".

Now some consider this to be accurate, since it appears he was not involved in either a fight or a gang bang, or both, nor were there photographs of either, which were the substance of the rumours circulating around Adelaide in the weeks following the night.

However in hindsight the statement comes across, well, to me anyway - as at the very least, misleading.

As for the reimbursement, I reckon Reid should have stayed out of the whole business if in fact the club wanted to take the line of "no involvement".

AS we agree on the facts, much of this is now simply a matter of opinion, so I guess we'll agree to differ.

 

[Eago77]

After reading some of the cow supporters posts i think we need to rename him Saint Wayne. Really guys come on. If he played for Port, I'm sure we'd be trying our best to defend this waywould ex-superstar, but really is he worth the effort? The cows knew the risks when they picked him up, and now they are begining to realise what an average idea it was to get him. Of course if he comes out and plays well then all will be forgotten, its amazing what can be overlooked by ones own supporters just because a guy can kick around a pigskin, shame adelaide shame.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Eago77
After reading some of the cow supporters posts i think we need to rename him Saint Wayne. Really guys come on. If he played for Port, I'm sure we'd be trying our best to defend this waywould ex-superstar, but really is he worth the effort? The cows knew the risks when they picked him up, and now they are begining to realise what an average idea it was to get him. Of course if he comes out and plays well then all will be forgotten, its amazing what can be overlooked by ones own supporters just because a guy can kick around a pigskin, shame adelaide shame.

You talk utter garbage.

No-one is calling him a saint or defending his morals in general

can't you losers even read.

People are only saying that he should be judged on the "truth" in this incident which now has no-one saying he did aynthing wrong

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by suzi_olsen
Agree with you Jars.

It almost sounded like the lady who was on the phone was drunk.

Yes, alcohol can lead to horrible consequences

So my mum always tells me.

 

[noddy]

Originally posted by Eago77
After reading some of the cow supporters posts i think we need to rename him Saint Wayne. Really guys come on. If he played for Port, I'm sure we'd be trying our best to defend this waywould ex-superstar, but really is he worth the effort? The cows knew the risks when they picked him up, and now they are begining to realise what an average idea it was to get him. Of course if he comes out and plays well then all will be forgotten, its amazing what can be overlooked by ones own supporters just because a guy can kick around a pigskin, shame adelaide shame.

When you ask "is he worth it" do mean the decision by the AFC to recruit Wayne? if so well time will tell,

Or do mean the way us Crow supporters & some others have continually put up arguments on this forum that show how all this anti Crows & anti Carey hogwash for what it is really worth, well the answer is yes & as has been shown during the last couple of days the effort by us was well worth it,

& when you claim "shame Adelaide shame"
maybe you should look in your own backyard for the meaning of the word "shame"

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by ok.crows
There was nothing wrong with what the Crows actually said at any time.

They said that Carey was not involved.

They did not say that there was no incident. No denials of any sort, despite the spin that the Herald Sun tried so hard to put on it.

I think you should ask 5AA for a copy of what was said on air by John Reid............

Just because it wasn't printed in a paper doesn't mean to say some spin wasn't put on it by the club................


They should have remained silent on the issue from the beginning and let it die a natural death but everytime they mention it all it does is rekindle the flames...........no matter what actually happened.

 

[napsyd]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
[BThey should have remained silent on the issue from the beginning and let it die a natural death but everytime they mention it all it does is rekindle the flames...........no matter what actually happened. [/B]

Bit like this thread really...

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
I think you should ask 5AA for a copy of what was said on air by John Reid............

Just because it wasn't printed in a paper doesn't mean to say some spin wasn't put on it by the club................

Well, what was said?

Put it this way - there were all sorts of alleagtions printed by the Herald Sun, including amongst others -

Wild Spa party,
A scuffle of some description,
Damage to the room,
Sex Romp,
Semi-naked in a T-shirt,
Photos of Carey in a compromising position,
Theft of a camera,
Crows paid for silence,
Crows and/or Carey paid $1000 for damages.

Against all those allegations of "incidents" at the Grand and after, the Crows can say with 100% legitimacy that -

No Wild Spa Party occurred,
No scuffle occurred,
Carey was not involved in damage to the room,
No Sex Romp occurred,
No semi-nakedness occurred,
No photos of Carey in a compromising position exist,
Carey was not involved in taking the camera,
Crows did not pay anyone any amount to keep quiet about anything,
Crows and/or Carey did not pay for damages to the room.

Now, there are quite a lot of "not involveds" and also a lot of "did not occurs" in amongst that lot. I'm sure Reid's statement and/or Triggs was not quite that explicit or detailed - but that simply does not make their statements wrong.

 

[eastaugh36]

There are a few people involved in the incident and on here who should make an apology.
Classing someone as guilty by nothing more than association..................pathetic.
Oh well Im happy.

 

[Eago77]

Originally posted by noddy
When you ask "is he worth it" do mean the decision by the AFC to recruit Wayne? if so well time will tell,

Or do mean the way us Crow supporters & some others have continually put up arguments on this forum that show how all this anti Crows & anti Carey hogwash for what it is really worth, well the answer is yes & as has been shown during the last couple of days the effort by us was well worth it,

The former, indeed time will tell.

Originally posted by noddy

& when you claim "shame Adelaide shame"
maybe you should look in your own backyard for the meaning of the word "shame"

No looking towards the cow shed will do.

 

[Eago77]

Originally posted by eastaugh36
There are a few people involved in the incident and on here who should make an apology.
Classing someone as guilty by nothing more than association..................pathetic.
Oh well Im happy.

I don't think whether the incident did or didn't occur (it obviously occured, whether Carey had much/any involvement isn't really know) isn't really the point. Again what kind of idiot keeps putting himself in compromising positions. Many people were dubious of the cows decision to get him because events like the current one are never far away. I guess the cows have to deal with him & his problems the best way they can, my feelings are they will get plently more chances at covering things up in the future (note i'm not saying whether they have or haven't got anything to cover up in this situation).

 

[gbear]

Originally posted by eastaugh36
There are a few people involved in the incident and on here who should make an apology.
Classing someone as guilty by nothing more than association..................pathetic.

Get off your pulpit easty! I am sure that if the shoe was on the other foot that your response would be similar to that of other posters on these boards.
On the subject of an apology you will get no response from me.

 

[eastaugh36]

Originally posted by gbear
Get off your pulpit easty! I am sure that if the shoe was on the other foot that your response would be similar to that of other posters on these boards.
On the subject of an apology you will get no response from me.

What do you mean ? It wouldnt matter who was being unfairly targeted, I would be on their side.
Im just happy that some people have been quietened with the outcome.

 

[Michele]

Originally posted by MarkT
Frankly to be an idiot in the past implies he IS an idiot. He didn't get smarter at the age of 30odd.

I don't think he has to stop all forms of social interaction but surely he knows and would have known for a long time that every minor slip up he makes will be blown out of proportion and thrown at him AND HIS CLUB.


You are right it is a free country (well supposed to be). He is free to go and get as drunk as the next man. He is free to go to a party like the next man. His club is free to expect abidance with contractual terms which would inhibit his otherwise free rights in these matters though. The media is free to report stories and if they go too far he is free to use the legal process to get restitution. I am free to judge, even though I may be in no position to cast the first stone. You of course are free to ignore me or discount my opinions according to whatever you think is relevant. Wayne is living in a free country but he is not as "free" as some because he put himself in the public domain. Like it or not that's just his lot.

................Frankly there are people that idolised him....

Yes, I attended all North matches and what I heard didn't sound much like idolisation.

..............That is a sad product of what he has done not what he is alleged to have done............

Interesting comment.

...............Every single thing that happens to him is self inflicted. Even the stuff which is only alleged because the suspicion he is viewed with and the feeding frenzy ...................

There are 3 key words in that sentence. Self-inflicted andalleged feeding frenzy
How bloody stupid to go to a mate's 30th birthday.
How stupid not to demand the removal of a spa bath.
How stupid to get a little drunk - at a party. No one else gets drunk, why should Carey? Who does he think he is?

What was self-inflicted?
And how in heaven's name can you find someone guilty in your words "only alleged". Surely the defintion means not verified.
And why a 'feedind frenzy'? Doesn't that say more about the morals of the journalists? Who cares about the truth - so long as it sells.

.......................Perhaps they are all baseless and you are right. All I have to say then is tuff luck he bought it on himself................

Bloody well thought out. What an extremely irrational argument based on your utter contempt for a person. Forget the facts.

All I have to say is BRISBANE

 

[Damp Squarie]

Macca was right!

Three cheers for the Dodgy Sisters ...Hip pip!!

Get over it people.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Michele
Yes, I attended all North matches and what I heard didn't sound much like idolisation.

No North fans idolised Carey? News to me.

Originally posted by Michele
There are 3 key words in that sentence. Self-inflicted andalleged feeding frenzy
How bloody stupid to go to a mate's 30th birthday.
How stupid not to demand the removal of a spa bath.
How stupid to get a little drunk - at a party. No one else gets drunk, why should Carey?

Did you read my post or did some just read edited highlights to you? I said he has every right to go and get as drunk as the next man etc etc. He does, however, know what the potential consequenses are. In case you are unsure here is exactly what I said:

Originally posted by MarkT I don't think he has to stop all forms of social interaction but surely he knows and would have known for a long time that every minor slip up he makes will be blown out of proportion and thrown at him AND HIS CLUB.

Originally posted by Michele
Who does he think he is?

Indeed!

Originally posted by Michele
What was self-inflicted?

The suspicion and derision with which his actions are viewed when they are remotely questionable. Also the propensity of the media and public to shoot first and ask questions later. Self inflicted by virtue of who he is and what he done in the past.

Originally posted by Michele
And how in heaven's name can you find someone guilty in your words "only alleged". Surely the defintion means not verified.

I did not say he was guilty of alleged incidents at all. I said it’s his fault (that he is presumed guilty or at fault) because of his past etc. Similar argument to what I said above.

Originally posted by Michele
And why a 'feedind frenzy'? Doesn't that say more about the morals of the journalists? Who cares about the truth - so long as it sells.

Sure.

Originally posted by Michele
......................Perhaps they are all baseless and you are right. All I have to say then is tuff luck he bought it on himself................

Bloody well thought out. What an extremely irrational argument based on your utter contempt for a person. Forget the facts.

So you don’t it it is reasonable or logical to react in light of past behavior?
You don’t view anything Eddie says with suspicion or worse because of who he is, what he represents or what he has done?
You don’t think Carey’s character is in any way questionable and/or that this is a valid base from which to assume the media will seize anything to sell papers?

Originally posted by Michele
All I have to say is BRISBANE

Ha, nice try. Yes, we lost a GF to a better team.
Frankly Michelle that’s all you need to say – about yourself

I think you forgot to throw in Darren Millane.