Oppo Camp The Non-North Footy Discussion & Matchday Chat Thread V

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
At the time he left I thought he had one good year left and it would be fine to give him two to match, but 3 was a bad deal. Turns out I was probably right. He had some excellent games once he got on the park in year 1, and naff-all in years 2 and 3. The way that all played out still bums me out a little, and it's a shame I couldn't bring myself to enjoy anything he did at Collingwood. Head says don't begrudge him (or any player really) a payday, heart says meh.

I'm a bit the same. My mum is a Pies supporter but she's always loved him and had a bit to do with him here and there so I was a bit more sanguine about the whole thing than some. Plus I thought deep down if we got rid of the others then we can't really keep him hanging around. Probably one of those uncomfortable truths but the whole thing worked out to the best for everyone.

Well except maybe for the Pies but ... well stuff them anyway. :thumbsu: :thumbsu:
 
Probably made zero difference to any result for North. We weren't making finals with Wells, and we didn't make finals without him.

I think by all accounts he was cooked and it was better that Collingwood paid his pension than North. Even if that was more due to good luck than good management.

We had made finals 4 of the previous 5 seasons. But I agree about the benefit of someone else paying his super.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Called it.

Though my confidence wavered when I saw his representative Was Adrian ******* Anderson of all people.

Yeah good call. It probably is why they specified "the eye region" when he was charged.
 
Yeah good call. It probably is why they specified "the eye region" when he was charged.

"eye region"
Another nice ambiguity in the AFL rules that allow them to do whatever the **** they want.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's bullshit he was found guilty of THAT CHARGE. But he also deserved a ban for being a dirty prick with a history of the same shit. It's 100% a square up for last week's punishment being a bit weak and then him throwing it in their faces. Everyone involved should be embarrassed.

Can't wait for the AFL's new lovechild to take the AFL to court. :rolleyes:
 
(E) AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL A Player or the AFL General Manager – Football Operations may appeal the decision of the Tribunal to the Appeal Board on one or more of the following grounds:

» » An error of law has occurred;

» » The decision of the Tribunal is so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it;

» » The classification of the offence by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive or inadequate; or

» » The sanction imposed by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

In addition, Regulation 19 provides that an appellant can seek leave of the Appeal Board to produce fresh evidence provided the appellant can convince the Appeal Board that the evidence sought to be produced could not, by reasonable diligence, have been obtained prior to the conclusion of the Tribunal hearing and where that evidence is of sufficient value that had it been presented before the Tribunal, the Tribunal would have reached a different decision (see Regulation 19.20(b)). The cost of an appeal will be $5000, with $2500 refundable in the event of a successful appeal.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

"eye region"
Another nice ambiguity in the AFL rules that allow them to do whatever the fu** they want.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's bulls**t he was found guilty of THAT CHARGE. But he also deserved a ban for being a dirty prick with a history of the same s**t. It's 100% a square up for last week's punishment being a bit weak and then him throwing it in their faces. Everyone involved should be embarrassed.

Can't wait for the AFL's new lovechild to take the AFL to court. :rolleyes:

Yeah, totally agree. Its a farce all around.

If the Bulldogs hadn't yapped about it after the game then the whole thing would have unfolded differently imo.

It looks like he deliberately hits Neale in the head with his right fist at one point. Softly but still hits him. That's an automatic week even for low impact. If they wanted to suspend him for a week they could have done that and it would have been at least as credible.
 
Gws v richmond Gf .. GWS to win their first flag.. which would be ****ing awesome.. because not one person will give a ****.. dont forget how good it was to not hear ONE bragging **** sucker over the pre season, if we cant win the flag then let the ****ing thing fly around the country.. it is bliss
 
I have checked out of the current footy season for a while but these MRO calls are as shambolic and inconsistent as ever, based on the new video technology they have and Michael Christian basically looking for any reason to suspend a player now.
We didn’t have this technology six months ago but it’s all well and good to have it now.
Shambles.
 

So they should. Manifestly excessive penalty for this action. One week Christian lays the wrong charge and is surprised he gets off, next week goes for a different charge that sticks, to the surprise of everyone else. Greene was silly but that's not a suspendable offence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top