Steven Hocking Conflict of Interest

[Meteoric Rise]

“I am perfectly happy to declare my hatred of Geelong openly.”

How do you leap from that to the claim you made:

"Because the OP admits his hatred of Geelong is clouding his judgment.”

I declared my hatred of Geelong, I have never said that it is clouding my judgement, you invented that part.

 

[Wojcinski]

I for one am glad that Geelong is able to produce the type of talent that can see them slot an agent into the upper management of the AFL. Hopefully Cook can take over from Gill and they can just remove Richmond from the AFL altogether. 17 clubs would be stoked although I imagine the fledgling sides like Gold Coast will rue the missed automatic 4 points from their games vs the Tigers.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I for one am glad that Geelong is able to produce the type of talent that can see them slot an agent into the upper management of the AFL. Hopefully Cook can take over from Gill and they can just remove Richmond from the AFL altogether. 17 clubs would be stoked although I imagine the fledgling sides like Gold Coast will rue the missed automatic 4 points from their games vs the Tigers.

That would in fact be a very sound strategy for Geelong to try to have the Tigers removed from the AFL. Particularly as we keep inconveniently beating you in finals. . Year after year.

 

[Sttew]

How do you leap from that to the claim you made:

"Because the OP admits his hatred of Geelong is clouding his judgment.”

I declared my hatred of Geelong, I have never said that it is clouding my judgement, you invented that part.

You didn't need to LOL. Hating something or someone blurs your judgment, assessment and ability to be objective. Simple Psychology 101. You of all people ought to know that.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You didn't need to LOL. Hating something or someone blurs your judgment, assessment and ability to be objective. Simple Psychology 101. You of all people ought to know that.

That is your judgement not mine, so you shouldn’t have attributed your own beliefs to me.

 

[Wojcinski]

That would in fact be a very sound strategy for Geelong to try to have the Tigers removed from the AFL. Particularly as we keep inconveniently beating you in finals. . Year after year.

ya gotta make the finals to beat us there though

 

[Meteoric Rise]

ya gotta make the finals to beat us there though

It would be more accurate to say if we make the finals then we beat you.

 

[Wojcinski]

It would be more accurate to say if we make the finals then we beat you.

doubtful, but isn't this thread about Steve Hocking? What does Tigers failing to make finals after the covid cup* have to do with it?

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

This is deceptively put by another Hocklodyte Geelong supporting poster.

The Tribunal is effectively limited to a maximum penalty by what the AFL Prosecutor argues for. Who decides what the AFL argues for?

You guessed it, Steven Hocking.

So we know the Tirbunal landed on 3 weeks when Hocking argued for 3 weeks. What we don’t know is what the Tribunal would land on if the Hocking had argued for say 4, 5 or 6 weeks.

"limited to a maximum penalty by what the AFL Prosecutor argues for?"
Really?

seems not.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

doubtful, but isn't this thread about Steve Hocking? What does Tigers failing to make finals after the covid cup* have to do with it?

Our dominance over you in finals gives the motive for your outlandish theory that Geelong are planting people like Hocking at AFL House with a view to ousting Richmond FC from the AFL. I was just trying to help support your theory with some relevant facts. And for that, what appreciation do I receive from you? None.

 

[Seeds]

That would in fact be a very sound strategy for Geelong to try to have the Tigers removed from the AFL. Particularly as we keep inconveniently beating you in finals. . Year after year.

chris Scott teams aren’t really Geelong teams. The spirit and culture of Geelong does not exist in those teams. He will be going to the pies soon.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

"limited to a maximum penalty by what the AFL Prosecutor argues for?"
Really?
View attachment 1171189
seems not.

OK, so first, you need to show cases where the AFL has argued for a certain sanction and the Tribunal has decided on a greater sanction….

My claim was the Tribunal is ”effectively” limited to the sanctions the AFL(Hocking) argues for, not that it is technically limited.

 

[Wojcinski]

Our dominance over you in finals gives the motive for your outlandish theory that Geelong are planting people like Hocking at AFL House with a view to ousting Richmond FC from the AFL. I was just trying to help support your theory with some relevant facts. And for that, what appreciation do I receive from you? None.

it's my theory now? you literally started the thread LOL

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

OK, so show cases where the AFL has argued for a certain sanction and the Tribunal has decided on a greater sanction….

My claim was the Tribunal is ”effectively” limited to the sanctions the AFL(Hocking) argues for, not that it is technically limited.

Sorry - you're claiming there's behaviour at the tribunal contrary to the guidelines and you're asking me to prove that there isn't?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

it's my theory now? you literally started the thread LOL

I am sorry, did somebody else post the following, or did you post it?

I for one am glad that Geelong is able to produce the type of talent that can see them slot an agent into the upper management of the AFL. Hopefully Cook can take over from Gill and they can just remove Richmond from the AFL altogether. 17 clubs would be stoked although I imagine the fledgling sides like Gold Coast will rue the missed automatic 4 points from their games vs the Tigers.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Sorry - you're claiming there's behaviour at the tribunal contrary to the guidelines and you're asking me to prove that there isn't?

For clarity here, would you be arguing the penalty the AFL argues for in Tribunal cases has no influence on the sentences the Tribunal hands down? Because that is what the first post in this exchange seems to be suggesting:

Also on this. You're right Hocking gave him nothing, because Hocking is not the MRO. Michael Christensen, a supposed stooge through which Hocking controls the universe apparently, referred him to the Tribunal with the exact same grading and punishment that the tribunal landed on. Almost d if he was being treated like any other player

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Hocklodytes out in force today.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Hocklodytes out in force today.

Hock-ANON members bumped this thread most recently.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

For clarity here, would you be arguing the penalty the AFL argues for in Tribunal cases has no influence on the sentences the Tribunal hands down? Because that is what the first post in this exchange seems to be suggesting:

I'm not arguing anything mate. Just showing you the publicly available guidelines by which the AFL tribunal conduct themselves. You're the one trying to "prove" something.

 

[The Prosecutor]

Steve Hocking literally been made Geelong CEO.

Ill get the popcorn!

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I'm not arguing anything mate. Just showing you the publicly available guidelines by which the AFL tribunal conduct themselves. You're the one trying to "prove" something.

The guidelines to me establish the Tribunal could issue a stronger sanction than that for which the AFL argues if it so chose. But I suspect convention is that this never happens and in every case the Tribunal issues the result for which either the player or the AFL has argued or somewhere in between the two.

For the Tribunal to issue a greater sentence than the AFL has argued for would be sort of equivalent to them finding a player not guilty where the player has pleaded guilty. It just wouldn’t happen.

Which was the point of my first post in this exchange. I was responding to CTTF’s post suggesting the Tribunal agreed with Hocking’s argument as if this agreement was completely independent of being influenced by Hocking’s argument.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Steve Hocking literally been made Geelong CEO.

Ill get the popcorn!

Good spot.

AFL football operations boss Steve Hocking to become Geelong CEO

AFL football operations boss Steve Hocking has been appointed Geelong CEO.

www.sen.com.au

So we have apparently had a man who has known he was likely to be the CEO of the Geelong FC sitting in judgement of Geelong players in his MRO role, and introducing radical rule changes etc.

But according to the Hocklodytes, no conflict of interest. Claims of no connection with the GFC made on this thread had already been shown to be false, but now they have turned into anti-matter.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

The guidelines to me establish the Tribunal could issue a stronger sanction than that for which the AFL argues if it so chose. But I suspect convention is that this never happens and in every case the Tribunal issues the result for which either the player or the AFL has argued or somewhere in between the two.

For the Tribunal to issue a greater sentence than the AFL has argued for would be sort of equivalent to them finding a player not guilty where the player has pleaded guilty. It just wouldn’t happen.

Which was the point of my first post in this exchange. I was responding to CTTF’s post suggesting the Tribunal agreed with Hocking’s argument as if this agreement was completely independent of being influenced by Hocking’s argument.

Getting more and more tenuous: "..I suspect convention is..."

 

[Sttew]

Meteoric Rise is speechless. His thread has literally died in the pants.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Good spot.

AFL football operations boss Steve Hocking to become Geelong CEO

AFL football operations boss Steve Hocking has been appointed Geelong CEO.

www.sen.com.au

And I look forward to the new thread "some-other-ex-player-conflict-of-interest". You'll get right on that, won't you Meteoric?